WPS/7428/2009 of ALOK DUBEY and ANR. Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ORS. on 17 December 2009

1. AlokDubey,sonofShri/”J.P.Dubey,agedabout40years,workingasSeniorTuberculosisLaboratorySuppervisor(STLS)atTuberculosisUnitMungeli,District~Bi1aspur(C.G.)J.P.Dubey,agedabout40years,workingasSeniorTuberculosisLaboratorySuppervisor(STLS)atTuberculosisUnitMungeli,District~Bi1aspur(C.G.)

v’2.SateshwarSinghInduwa,sonof Shri N.P.Induwa, aged about29years,WorkingasSeniorTuberculosisLaboratorySuppervisor(STLS)atTuberculosisUnitGorella,District-Bilaspur(C.G.)of Shri N.P.Induwa, aged about29years,WorkingasSeniorTuberculosisLaboratorySuppervisor(STLS)atTuberculosisUnitGorella,District-Bilaspur(C.G.)

VERS US

RESPONDENTS,%1)State of Chhattisgarh,Through—SecretaryHealth85Familywelfare,Department,Mantralaya,DKSBhawan,Raipur(C . G .)Through—SecretaryHealth85Familywelfare,Department,Mantralaya,DKSBhawan,Raipur(C . G .)

/2)

StateTuberculosisOfficer,DirectorateHealthServices,Raipur(C.G.),DirectorateHealthServices,Raipur(C.G.)

DistribtTuberculosisOfficerDistrictDistrict/Secretary,TuberculosisControlCentre,CIIMS Campus, Bilaspur(C.G.)TuberculosisControlCentre,CIIMS Campus, Bilaspur(C.G.)

‘.z 4)Collector/ Chairman,DistrictTuberculosisSociety,District—Bilaspur(C. G.)TuberculosisSociety,District—Bilaspur(C. G.)

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1) PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER:

As mentioned in the cause title above.

L/

1,.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATT‘SéARH: BILASPUR

WRIT PETITION gs; N0.7428 OF 2009

PETITIONERSAlok Dubey & Another

Versus

RESPONDENTS$hte of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ[Petition][ under]Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

Singie Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Present :~Shri Anand Dadariya, counsei for the petitioners.

Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State.

ORDER (ORAL1

(Passed[on]this 17day of December. 2009)

1. Withtheconsentof teamedcounselappearingfor theparties; petition[is][ heard][ finally.]

2. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following the reliefs petition, the petitioners seek the following the reliefs :

“10.1That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleasedto quash/set-aside the impugned notice dated2i12f2009(Annexure-Pit)passedbytherespondent No.3.That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleasedto quash/set-aside the impugned notice dated2i12f2009(Annexure-Pit)passedbytherespondent No.3.

10.2That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleasedquash/set—asidethe impugnedadvertisement(Annexure[—-][ P/2)]pubiished in daily newspaperdated 20H 1!.2009.quash/set—asidethe impugnedadvertisement(Annexure[—-][ P/2)]pubiished in daily newspaperdated 20H 1!.2009.

10.3That, this’Hon’ble Court may kindiy be pleasedtodirecttherespondentstocontinuethe.petitionerstillthecontinuationofRNTCPprogram.todirecttherespondentstocontinuethe.petitionerstillthecontinuationofRNTCPprogram.

10.4That, this Hon*ble Court may kindly be pleased pleasedtodirecttherespondentstograntallthemonetary aliowanoe as like fixed aiiowance ofRs.1000/~permonthandenhancedremuneration @ 5%per[annum]reguiarly asmonetary aliowanoe as like fixed aiiowance ofRs.1000/~permonthandenhancedremuneration @ 5%per[annum]reguiarly asperthenormsandguidelinesforthecontractual staff.contractual staff.

10.5Anyotherrelief,includingthecostofthispetition,it appears to be tit and appropriate tothis Hon’ble Court.”petition,it appears to be tit and appropriate tothis Hon’ble Court.”

4.

Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuantto the advertisement i$sued by the respondent authoritiesin theyear2002,-thepetitionersappliedforthepostofSeniorTubercuiosisLaboratory Supervisor(for[short][ “STLS")]andafterparticipating[in][ the][ entire][ selection]process[e.g.][ interview,][ etc.][ the]petitioners[were][ appointed][ on][ 22-6-2002][ for][ a]period[of][ one]year[on]contract basis on a fixed pay of Rs.6,000l— per month.Learnedcounsel further submits that even after completion of one year aisothe respondent authorities permitted the petitioners to continue theirservice on account of their work being found satisfactory and, assuch,thepetitionersareworkingintherespondentdepartmentwithout anv break.However,ailof a sudden on 2-12-2009 therespondent authorities issued the impugned order, by giving onemonth terminationnotice to thepetitioners[and]issued the freshadvertisement to flit the vacant posts on contract basis for a periodof oneyear,whichisevident fromAnnexure[-]PI2.Learnedcounsei next submits that the action of the respondent authorities[in]issuing the impugned notice is without any reason and the noticehasbeenissuedwith/ malefideintentionbymakingfreshappointments on the said post only to give undue advantage[to][ the]persons[of][ the][ own][ choice][ of][ the][ respondent][ authorities.][ Thus,][ this]petition.

i have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perusedthe pleadings and documents appended thereto.Admittediy, the appointment of the petitioners was on contract[basis]foraperiodofoneyear.Accordingtothepetitioners,thepetitioners[have][ continued][ on][ service][ after][ completion][ of][ one][ year]contract periodsNo order has been tiled to indicate[that][ there][ was]

any sanction[or][ order][ for][ extension]of timeof one year[contract]period.Thus,it appears that[the]petitioners[have][ continued][ after]completion of[one]year[without][ authority of][ iaw][ and,][ as][ such,][ the]continuation may[be][ held][ as][ iliegal.]

in Secretary,[State][ of][ Karnataka][ and][ Others][ v.][ Umadevi][ (3)][ and]Others‘, the Supreme[Court][ observed][ as][ under][ :]

“12.inspiteof this scheme,[there][ may][ be]occasionswhen “thesovereignStateoritsinstrumentaiities[will][ have][ to][ employ]persons,in posts which[are][ temporary,][ on][ daily][ wages,]as additional[hands][ or taking][ them]in withoutfollowing the[required]procedure,[to][ discharge]thedutiesinrespectofthepoststhatare_sanctioned and[that][ are][ required][ to][ be][ filled][ in]terms of the relevant procedure[estabiished][ by]the Constitution [or][ for][ work][ in][ temporary][ posts]or projects[that][ are]not neededpermanently.ThisrightcftheUnionl' oroftheStateGovernmentcannotbutberecognizedandtherer[is]nothingintheConstitutionwhichprohibits[such][ engaging][ ofpersons][ temporariiy]or ondaily wages,[to][ meet][ the][ needs][ of][ the]eituaticn.But the fact[that][ such][ engagements]are resorted[to,][ cannot][ be][ used][ to][ defeat the]very scheme[of]public[employment.]Nor can acourtsaythattheUnionortheStateGovernments do[not][ have][ the][ right][ to][ engage]persons[in][ various][ capacities][ for][ a][ doration][ or],untiithe»workinaparticularprojectiscompleted.Once this right[of][ the][ Government]isrecognizedandthemandatea oftheconstitutionai:requirementforpublicisrespected,therecannotbeemploymentmuch difficulty[in][ coming][ to][ the][ conclusion][ that]itisordinarilynotproperfor cour$[whether]’underactingArticle 226 of the[Constitution][ or]under Articie[32]of the Constitution,[to][ direct]absorption[in]permanent[employment][ of][ those]whohave been[engaged]without following[a]due process of[selection][ as][ envisaged‘by][ the]constitutional[scheme.]

47. Whenapersonentersatemporaryemploymentorgetsengagementasacontractualorcasualworkerandtheengagement[is][not][ based][ on][ a]proper[seiectionr]‘asrecognizedbytherelevantrules orprocedure,[he][ is'aware][ of][ the][ consequences][ of]

\\_H2006)[43cm]\r~‘-\,

the' appointmentbeing’temporary,casualorcontractualin nature.Such a person cannotyinvoke the theory of iegitimate expectatioh forcontractualin nature.Such a person cannotyinvoke the theory of iegitimate expectatioh forbeingcormrmedinthepostwhenanappointment to the post'could be made only byfollowing a proper procadure for selection andappointment to the post'could be made only byfollowing a proper procadure for selection andinconcernedcases,inconsultationwiththePublicServiceCommission.Therefore,.thetheoryoflegitimateexpectationcannotbetheoryoflegitimateexpectationcannotbesuccessfuliyadvancedbytemporary,oontractuaiorcasuaiemployees.it cannotalso be held that the State has held out anypromise[while][ engaging]these persons either tocontinue them where they are or to make thempermanent,The State cannot constitutionallythemake theory such cannot a promise. be invokedit is also to seek obvious a positive that‘rrelief of being made permanent in the post.oontractuaiorcasuaiemployees.it cannotalso be held that the State has held out anypromise[while][ engaging]these persons either tocontinue them where they are or to make thempermanent,The State cannot constitutionallythemake theory such cannot a promise. be invokedit is also to seek obvious a positive that‘rrelief of being made permanent in the post.

‘

‘

48....;Thereisno fundamentairightinthose’ who have been empioyed on daily wages or ftemporarilyor oncontractualbasis,to ciaimthattheyhavearighttobe' absorbed in‘service. . . .."

The services of the petitioners came to an end after completion ofone year.Continuation thereafter does not confer any right on thepetitionersforfurthercontinuationonthepost.Thus,thepetitioners[have no][ right]tothe post on which they were appointedon contract basis fora period ofrone year.

Second contention of the petitioners that the respondent authoritieshave advertised for appointment of other person‘s on the said post,the same is bad in law and unjust is concerned, the same is noticedto be rejected. as the law as held in State of Haryana and Others_[v.][ Piara][ Singh][ and]Othersz, hasalready been considered and7[overruled][ in]Umadevi (supra), wherein a constitution Benchof theSupreme Court observed that the directions running counter to theconstitutional scheme of employment is no longer a good law.Theobservations in this regard are as under:

“54.Itisalsoclarified’thatthosedecisionswhichruncountertotheprinciplesettledinthisdecision,orinwhich directions[running][ counter][ to][ what]we have held[herein,][ will][ stand][ denuded]of their status as precedents.”

No contract employee[has][ a][ legal][ right][ to][ be][ continued][ for][ ever][ till]regularlyselectedemployeesareappointed.Therightofthepetitioners[on][ the][ post][ came][ to][ an][ end][ on][ completion][ of][ period][ of]

one year.

The Supreme[Court,]in State of[Haryana][ &][ Others][ v.][ Charanjit]Singh & Others3,[observed][ as][ under:]

“22.....Thesearecasesofpersonsemployed on[contract.][ To][ such]personsthe principle[of][ equal]pay[for][ equal][ work]hasnoapplication.‘TheFullBenchjudgment[dealt][ only][ with][ daily—rated][ and]casualworkers.Whereapersonisemployedunderacontract,itisthecontract which[ will]govern[the][ terms][ and]conditionsofservice.InStateofHaryanav.SurinderKumarpersonsemployedoncontractbasis-claimedequalpayasregularworkersonthefootingthattheirpostswereinterchangeable.It washeldthat thesepersons[had][ no][ right][ to][ the][ regular][ posts]untiltheyaredulyselectedandappointed.It was held[that][ they][ were][ not]entitledtothesamepayasregularemployeesbyclaimingthattheyaredischarging the[same][ duties.]It was heldthat the very[object of][ selection][ is][ to test]theeligibilityandthentomakeappointmentinaccordancewiththerules.It washeldthat therespondentshadnotbeenrecruitedinaccordancewiththerulesprescribedfor’recruitment.”

As far as the[contention][ of][ the]petitioners[that][ they][ are][ entitled][ to]otherallowancesisconcerned,thesameisalsonoticedtoberejected, as the petitioners[have][ not][ stated][ that][ theyhave][ not][ been]'topaidthewages.Seekingadirectiongrantmoreadditional \wCC

321\\E

_‘\‘’\gt\

12.

13. increments/allowances the same cannot bé.granted by the Court,asit is for the employer to decide asto what should be the wages/increments and what should be thetallowances.‘For the reasons stated hereinabove andapplying the well settledprinciplesoflawtothefactsofthepresentcasewhereinthe the same cannot bé.granted by the Court,asit is for the employer to decide asto what should be the wages/increments and what should be thetallowances.‘For the reasons stated hereinabove andapplying the well settledprinciplesoflawtothefactsofthepresentcasewhereinthepetitioners wereappointed oncontract basisfor aperiodof oneyear,[the]petitioners are not entitled to any relief.year,[the]petitioners are not entitled to any relief.lntheresult,thewritpetitionisdismissedatthemotionstagelts'elilts'eli Sd/-Sa tish K. AgnihotriJudge