Contractual employees have no right to insist on the renewal of their contract and cannot claim any protection against termination after the contract period is over.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petitions have been filed challenging action of the respondent authorities for not renewing the contract of their appointment. Further, a prayer is made for reinstating the petitioners with full salary.

2. Both the petitioners were appointed on the contractual basis in the year 2011. The appointment orders dated 30.11.2011 indicate that they were appointed on the contract basis for a period of 11 months. The conditions attached with the appointment orders reveal that they were appointed on fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.12,000/-. They were being appointed under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) Guidelines. Condition Nos.E and F of such appointment orders reveal that they can be terminated by giving prior notice of seven days in the case of indiscipline and in other case by giving prior notice of 30 days or sudden termination by either side will be in lieu of a salary amounting to 30 days of work. It appears that thereafter, the petitioners’ contract of service has been extended and by the impugned order dated 29.10.2020, they are relieved from service by observing that since the contract period is getting over on 29.10.2020, their service would not be required. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned orders of termination are required to be quashed and set aside since the respondent authorities could not have terminated the service of the petitioners after renewal of the contract from time to time since 2011. It is submitted that no reasons are assigned, while terminating the service of the petitioners and in fact, the contract of the service was required to be renewed in wake of the fact that the contract has been extended since 2011. Thus, he has submitted that the respondents may be directed to renew the contract and further regularize their service.

4. Per contra, learned AGP has submitted that the petitioners have no right to their post as they were appointed on contractual basis for the period of 11 months and merely because the contract has been extended for so many years intermittently, they cannot claim the right to the post. It is submitted that as and when their services were required, the contract was entered upon and when their contract period was over, the respondent authorities thought it fit not to extend the same.

5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on the contractual basis in the year 2011 for 11 months. The conditions attached to their contract reveal that their status is contractual status and Condition No.1 specifically mentions that the contractual employee is not considered as a staff member of the District Child Protection Unit (DCPU) and is only a contractual employee of the organization. The contractual employee is entitled to the fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.12,000/- only as per the contract. Condition Nos.E and F mention the termination of service by giving prior notice of seven days in case of indiscipline and in other cases, notice of 30 days and for sudden termination by either side will be in lieu of a salary amounting to 30 days of work. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are not paid the salary amount for 30 days work.

7. In an identical case and on issue of nonrenewal of the contract, this Court in the judgement dated 07.02.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.11394 of 2018, has held thus:

“11. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgement dated 27.04.2021 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.776 of 2021, wherein the Division Bench, after considering array of the judgement of the Apex Court, on a similar issue has held thus:

“11. None of the arguments advanced by Mr. Syed, learned Senior Advocate appearing for t