Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3)   Division   Bench   of   High   court   in   its   judgment   dated 20.07.2012   rendered   in   Writ   Petition   No.13703­13705   of 2012 treated the appointment of appellants as contractual appointment. 

23. The   first   issue   to   be   answered   is   as   to   whether   the appointments   of   appellants   were   appointment   on   'pensionable establishment'   or   not.   The   expression   'pensionable establishment' is not defined under the 1978 Rules. Rule 2 of 1978   Rules   which   provides   for   application   of   Rules   is   as follows:­ "2.   Application:­  Save   as   otherwise   provided   in these   rules,   these   Rules   shall   apply   to   all Government Servants appointed to Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are   borne   on   pensionable   establishments,   whether temporary or permanent, but shall not apply to­

29. Now, we come to the second reason given by the High Court that   the   appointments   of   the   appellants   were   contractual appointments. We have already noticed that the appointments of the appellants were made against nineteen sanctioned posts of Additional   District   Judges   by   Government   Order   dated 18.12.2001.   The   notification   which   was   issued   by   the   High Court   inviting   applications   from   practising   Advocates mentioned   that   applications   are   invited   from   practising Advocates   for   being   considered   for   the   post   of   Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad­hoc basis for a period of five years. It further mentioned that the post carries a Scale   of   Pay   of   Rs.15000­400­18600.   Thus,   the   notification inviting applications never mentioned that it is a contractual appointment.   Further,   the   appointment   order   issued   to   the appellants dated 14.02.2002, in paragraph 3 stated as follows:

30. In   service   jurisprudence,   the   appointments   are   made   by employer   with   different   nomenclature/characteristics. Appointments   are   made   both   on   permanent   or   temporary   basis against permanent post or temporary post. The appointment can also be made on ad­hoc basis on permanent or temporary post. There   is   one   common   feature   of   appointments   of   permanent, temporary   or   ad­hoc   appointment   i.e.   those   appointments   are made against the post whether permanent or temporary. On the contrary, for contractual appointment, there is no requirement of   existence   of   any   post.   A   contractual   appointment   is   not normally   made   against   a   post.   Further,   contractual appointments are also not normally on Pay Scale. On the mere fact   that   the   advertisement   as   well   as   the   appointment   was made   initially   for   a   period   of   five   years,   the   nature   of appointment of the appellants cannot be termed as contractual appointment. When a Government servant is contemplated to hold a certain post for a limited period it is a Tenure Post.

Although   temporary,   ad­hoc   and   contractual   appointments   are used in contradiction to a regular and permanent appointment but   between   ad­hoc   appointment   and   contract   appointment, distinction   is   there   in   service   jurisprudence   and   both   the expressions   cannot   be   interchangeably   used.   When   the advertisement against which the appellants were appointed and the   appointment   order   mentions   the   appointment   as   ad­hoc appointment, we cannot approve the view of the High Court that the   nature   of   the   appointment   of   the   appellants   was   only   a contractual appointment.