Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B PARDIWALA, J.
Babu N.S - Petitioners
Vs.
Sardar Patel Institute of Economic and Social Research & Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 3578 of 2002
Decided On : 02-09-2016
Contractual Employee - Employment Dispute - Planning Commission Act, 2002 - The court dismissed the writ-application of a former contractual employee seeking regularisation in service, citing the contractual nature of the appointment and the absence of any legal right to claim absorption or regularisation. The court emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to cases of contractual employment and that the right to work, while provided for in the Constitution, is unenforceable under Article 37. The court also highlighted the distinction between temporary and permanent employees, emphasizing that temporary employees have no right to the post and cannot claim regularisation upon the completion or discontinuance of a project or scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The writ-applicant, a former contractual employee, sought regularisation in service after the Planning Commission discontinued the project under which he was employed. The respondent no. 1 Institute terminated the writ-applicant's services in line with the project's discontinuation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ-applicant, being a contractual employee, had no legal right to claim absorption or regularisation in service. The court emphasized the absence of any provision for the regularisation of contract employees and the unenforceability of the right to work under Article 37 of the Constitution.
Issues: The main issue was whether the writ-applicant, as a contractual employee, was entitled to regularisation in service following the discontinuation of the project under which he was employed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that contractual employees have no legal right to claim absorption or regularisation in service, emphasizing the absence of any provision for regularisation and the unenforceability of the right to work under Article 37 of the Constitution. The court also highlighted the distinction between temporary and permanent employees, emphasizing that temporary employees have no right to the post and cannot claim regularisation upon the completion or discontinuance of a project or scheme.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ-application, emphasizing the contractual nature of the appointment and the absence of any legal right to claim absorption or regularisation in service. The court directed the writ-applicant to take up the issue independently with the Planning Commission, Government of India.
J.B PARDIWALA, J.
By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant, a former contractual employee of the respondent no. 1 - Institute, has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(A) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.3.2002 passed by the respondent no. 1 (at Annexure ‘A’) holding the same to be illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(B) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service as Steno-Typist (English) under the respondent no. 1 Institute.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay of operation, execution and implementation of the impugned order dated 21.3.2002 passed by the respondent no. 1 at Annexure ‘A’, in the interest of justice.
(D) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. It appears from the materials on record that the writ-applicant herein was appointed as a Stenographer in the Planning Commission's sponsored “Agro Climatic Regional Planning Documentation and Dissemination Centre” purely on contractual basis. The terms and conditions of the appointment were as under:
“1.You will draw a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 3350/- per month (with no other allowances).
2. Your contractual appointment on the project is purely temporary and for a period from April 3, 1996 to 31st March, 1997.
3. The Institute reserves its right to terminate your services earlier before the completion of period any time without any notice or assigning any reasons for termination
4. It is clearly understood that this appointment is in no case an appointment in the Institute but specifically in the sponsored project at ADDC entrusted to the Institute by the Planning Commission.”
3. It appears that the project was given to the respondent no. 1 Institute for implementation. The project was being funded by the Planning Commission. The project continued for almost 14 years. On 28th February 2002, the Planning Commission informed the Director of the respondent no. 1 Institute as regards the discontinuation of the ACRP project. The intimation in this regard reads as under:
“Subject: Discontinuation of ACRP Project including ARPU-Regarding.
In continuation of letter No.Q-11011/7/96-97-ARPU dated 24.7.2000, it is to inform that with the approval of the competent authority in the Planning Commission, it has been decided to discontinue all the activities of Agro-Climatic Regional Planning (ACRP) Project, including Agro-Climatic Regional Unit (ARPU) w.e.f 01.04.2002
2. All the staff engaged in ARPU on contract basis for the ACRP project will stand reverted to SPIESR after 31.3.2002 The Planning Commission will have no liability, whatsoever, as per the conditions contained in the Office Order No.A-12013/21/88-Admn.I dated 17.06.1988
3. All the items purchased through the grants released by the Planning Commission under the Project will be the property of the Planning Commission which will decide on their utilization/disposal, etc. A complete inventory of all the items, purchased since inception of the ACRP Project from the grants provided by the Planning Commission, may be prepared and sent to the undersigned for taking further action.
4. Any amount remaining unutilised with SPIESR from out of the grants released under ACRP project will have to be refunded to the Planning Commission.”
4. In view of the above, the writ-applicant was informed by the Project Director on 21st March 2002 that his services were being discontinued with effect from 31st March 2002. The communication reads as under:
“S.P Kashyap
Director,
Ref No.SPI/ARPU-576
Dt. 21st March 2002
Dear Shri. Babu,
This has reference to the letter dated 21.8.1997 by which you had been given appointment to work in the Planning Commission sponsored “Agro-Climatic Regional Plannin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
