The main legal point established in the judgment is the justifiability of the DDA's policy of 2018 and its impact on the employment rights of contractual employees, particularly Ex-Servicemen.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPLs. 35473/2023 & 35474/2023 in W.P.(C) 9319/2023

CM APPLs. 35481/2023 & 35482/2023 in W.P.(C) 9320/2023

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 9319/2023, CM APPL. 35472/2023

W.P.(C) 9320/2023, CM APPL. 35480/2023

1. These two petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated July 04, 2023 in O.A. 1678/2022 and O.A.1695/2022 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the O.As', filed by the petitioners herein being bereft of any merit.

2. Suffice to state that the petitioners herein are Ex-Serviceman who retired from Indian Army on completion of their normal tenure. After their retirement they were engaged as Typist-cum-Clerk in the respondent/Delhi Development Authority (`DDA', in short) on different dates in the year 2010/2012, on contract basis.

3. The initial term of engagement was for six months on a consolidated remuneration, however, the term was extended and at the same time the letter of appointment stipulated that the contract may also be terminated at any time. The petitioners continued to be engaged on contract basis on the position of Typist-cum-Clerk till the year 2022 when the notice of termination was issued to them on June 07, 2022.

4. The petitions have been filed challenging the notice of termination dated June 07, 2022. One of the reliefs in the O.A. was also for quashing of the policy dated December 05, 2018. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that during their engagement as Typist-cum-Clerk they were governed by policy notified on December 30, 2017 which stipulated that the age limit would not be beyond 65 years. However, there was a provision that even this age limit 65 years may be relaxed in public interest in deserving and exceptional circumstances. Whereas, the policy which was issued on December 05, 2018, had restricted the period of contract to only five years. It was their case that the subsequent policy of 2018 had adversely affected their engagement as Typist-cum-Clerk.

5. The challenge to the policy of 2018 was also on the ground that the same was issued without the approval of competent authority. That apart, it was also their case that by operating the policy of 2018 the respondent DDA could not have violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992)4 SCC 118, wherein, the Court categorically held that contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees which the respondent intends to do by introducing the policy of the 2018.

6. Whereas, the case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the petitioners have no right over the appointment. Moreso, in view of the terms set out in their initial engagement which stipulated that their services could be terminated at any point of time.

7. That apart, the contract staff having been appointed for a specific purpose, such engagement cannot be for any indefinite period and the policy which is general in nature is applicable to all and, cannot be the subject matter of challenge.

8. It was stated that initially the DDA has framed its own policy and guidelines but in the year 2018 when the Government of India framed uniform guidelines with respect to the engagement of Consultants/Advisors containing terms and conditions, DDA being the Government organization, adopted those uniform guidelines. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harsh Ajay Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 11011/2022.

9. It was the case of the respondents that the petitioners have been engaged after their retirement. The respondents also to look for the younger and efficient manpower. Moreover, the petitioners are in receipt of regular pension and post retirement, they cannot claim vested right to continue with the engagement. It was also stated that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh (supra) would not come to the aid of the petition