Chhattisgarh HC: Contractual Employees Governed by Appointment Terms & CG Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam 2012 Have No Accrued Right to Continued Service - 2025-05-10

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Termination of Contractual CIMS Employees, Cites Lack of Accrued Right to Post

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – May 09, 2025 – The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling, dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by contractual employees of the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science (CIMS), Bilaspur, upholding their termination and affirming that contractual appointees, governed by the terms of their agreement and relevant service rules, possess no inherent right to continue in their posts. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey .

The petitioners, who served in various capacities such as OT Technicians, Nischetna Technicians, Sweepers, Ward Boys, and Cooks since as early as 1996, challenged a termination notice dated June 1, 2015, effective June 30, 2015, and a subsequent advertisement for new contractual appointments.

Case Background

The core issue before the court revolved around the legality of the termination of these long-serving contractual employees and whether they could be replaced by another set of contractual workers. The petitioners had been appointed on a contractual basis for one-year periods, with their services extended over several years. Their services were terminated citing the CG Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012), allegedly due to completing a maximum period of five years.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Contentions: The counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prateek Sharma and Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, argued that: * The termination and subsequent advertisement were unwarranted, as a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee, citing Supreme Court precedents. * An amicable resolution on April 5, 2011, between the petitioners and the Dean of CIMS (following a meeting with the Director, Medical Education) had assured that employees with over five years of service would be continued until a decision on their regularization was made. They were also to be considered for benefits, seniority, and age relaxation in any new regular appointments. * The petitioners contested the respondents' interpretation of the Contract Rules, 2012, stating there was no maximum five-year limit. * A State Government directive from January 17, 2014, indicated a policy to be framed for providing benefits of direct recruitment to daily wagers/contractual Class-III and Class-IV employees, which was allegedly ignored. * An amendment to the Contract Rules (dated March 31, 2015) mandated consideration of Confidential Reports/Performance Appraisal for service extension or further contractual appointment, which they claimed was not followed despite their excellent or very good performance. They relied on Soni Dineshbhai Manilal and others Vs. Jagjivan Mulchand Chokshi, (2007) 13 SCC 293 and Manish Gupta and others Vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others, (2022) 15 SCC 540 .

Respondents' Counter-Arguments: Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate, representing the State and CIMS, submitted that: * The termination notice was issued strictly in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice, with one month's advance notice. * The challenged advertisement (dated June 15, 2015) was for a newly established Trauma Unit at CIMS and had since been cancelled due to technical reasons (like reservation issues), with a notice published in newspapers. * Crucially, the State Government, on May 3, 2023, decided to fill vacant Class-III and IV cadre posts on a permanent basis through the CG Professional Examination Board. The Director of Medical Education had instructed relevant authorities on May 10, 2023, to provide vacancy details, and CIMS, Bilaspur, had submitted a proposal for permanent recruitment on May 23, 2023. * The petitioners, having accepted contractual appointments, were bound by their terms. The respondents cited State of Maharashtra And others Vs. Anita and another, (2016) 8 SCC 293 and Yogesh Mahajan Vs. Professor RC Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (2018) 3 SCC 218 .

Court's Analysis and Precedents

The Court, after hearing both sides and perusing records, noted that the petitioners were indeed contractual employees. Their appointment orders contained standard contractual terms, including: * Consolidated pay without additional allowances. * Specific leave entitlements. * Termination by either party with one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. * No entitlement to pension or gratuity for the contractual service period. * Maintenance of Confidential Reports for future consideration of contract renewal.

The Court placed significant reliance on Supreme Court judgments:

In State of Maharashtra And others Vs. Anita and another (supra) , the Apex Court held: > "The conditions of the respondents' engagement are governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted the contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment... merely because the posts were created, they cannot be held to be permanent in nature."

In Yogesh Mahajan Vs. Professor RC Deka (supra) , the Supreme Court observed: > "It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time... We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractual basis." > The Court also noted that for regularization under Umadevi (3) , the appointment must be in accordance with regular procedure, which was not indicated for the petitioner.

Judgment and Implications

Justice Rajani Dubey , applying these principles, found that the petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis for a limited period and were given one month's advance notice before termination. The Court also noted that the advertisement initially challenged by the petitioners had already been cancelled. More significantly, the State had initiated a process to fill these posts on a permanent basis.

The Court concluded: > "Thus, looking the aforesaid guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the nature of appointment of the petitioners and the terms and conditions of their appointment order, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners having got no accrued right to continue on their respective posts, are not entitled for any relief as claimed."

Consequently, all writ petitions (WPS No. 2331 of 2015, WPS No. 2334 of 2015, WPS No. 2249 of 2015, WPS No. 2250 of 2015, WPS No. 2251 of 2015, and WPS No. 259 of 2016) were dismissed as being without merit. No order as to costs was made.

This judgment reiterates the established legal position regarding the rights of contractual employees, emphasizing that they are primarily governed by the terms of their contract and do not automatically acquire a right to permanency or continued employment, especially when the employer decides to fill such posts through a regular, permanent recruitment process.