IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, J.
Kamal Dilipkumar Aacharya – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 9108 of 2021
Decided On : 15-11-2022
Mandamus - Contract Employee - 31(B) - Regular pay scale, regularization, and quashing of transfer order - 30.04.2012 - Transfer of contractual employee - Regularization of service - Absorption in Board, Corporation or Public Enterprises - Contractual basis - Regular set up of the State - Regularization - Termination of contractual employment - Judicial review of administrative actions - Contractual employment and imposition of special terms - No right to have contract renewed - Transfer of contractual employee as per work requirement
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contract employee, sought a writ of mandamus to hold his selection as regular and to regularize his services. The petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis for 11 months and continued in service. The petitioner was illegally transferred to another place, and it was argued that he is entitled to absorption of service and that the transfer was done overnight without any reason. The respondent argued that the petitioner, being a contractual employee, is not entitled to regularization and that the transfer was done due to administrative exigency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being a contractual employee, is governed by the terms and conditions of the contract. The court also held that the petitioner has no right to the post on which he was appointed on a contractual basis and that the transfer of a contractual employee can be done as per the work requirement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the regularization of a contract employee, the legality of the transfer order, and the rights of a contractual employee in terms of absorption and regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that contractual employees have no right to have their contracts renewed and that the transfer of a contractual employee can be done as per the work requirement. The court also emphasized that the petitioner's appointment on a contractual basis comes to an end by the efflux of time and that the petitioner has no right to the post on which he was appointed on a contractual basis.
Final Decision: The writ petition was rejected, and the court discharged the notice.
ORDER :
1. The present writ-petition has been filed for the following prayers:-
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order of transfer dated 26-28/05/2021 at Annexure-E and further be pleased to restore present petitioner on the original post of State Consultants for which petitioner was hired for.”
2. The petitioner, who is a contract employee is seeking a writ of mandamus holding his selection as a regular selection and also to regularize his services. Further, a direction is sought to quash and set aside the transfer order dated 26/28.05.2021.
3. Learned advocate Mr. H.J. Dholakia, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the contractual basis by the order dated 30.04.2012 for a period of 11 months, and thereafter, he has been continued in service. It is submitted that by the impugned order, the petitioner has been illegally transferred to another place and after rendering services for so many years, now it was not open for the respondent authority, to transfer him.
4. Learned advocate has submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to absorption of service and the respondent authorities, has immediately illegally transferred the petitioner, for no reason by the order dated 26/28.05.2021 and no time was given for him and the transfer was done overnight.
5. Learned advocate has further submitted that for similarly situated contractual employees, working across the State, their contracts have been renewed and they are working in the same place, however, the petitioner has been transferred.
6. Per contra, Learned AGP has submitted that the petitioner, who was appointed on contractual basis for a period of 11 months and continued in service, is not entitled to any relief of that to of a regular employee and regularization. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization and after having accepted the appointment order dated 30.04.2012 on contract basis, which he is governed with the terms and conditions mentioned therein.
7. Learned AGP has submitted that the transfer in the initial service and the petitioner being a contractual employee, can be transferred looking to the administrative exigency. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is appointed by the order dated 30.04.2012 on contractual basis for a period of 11 months with the conditions mentioned therein.
8. The condition No.14 of the appointment order reveals that the petitioner will have right to be absorbed in any Board, Corporation or Public Enterprises on regular set up of the State. Having accepted such conditions, the petitioner cannot claim regularization.
9. It is well settled principle of law that an employee, who is appointed on contractual basis is governed by the terms and conditions of contract.
10. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgement dated 27.04.2021 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.776 of 2021, wherein the Division Bench, after considering the array of the judgements of the Apex Court, on a similar issue, has held thus:
Vidyavardhaka Sangha & Anor. vs. Y.D. Deshpande & Ors.
Yogesh Mahajan vs R.C.Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences
AI
Contractual employees have no right to have their contracts renewed, and the transfer of a contractual employee can be done as per the work requirement.
Point of Law : Re-engagement of the petitioners after the first contractual period was over will not amount to unfair practice.
Employees appointed in temporary units on contractual basis are not entitled to absorption or regularization, as their initial appointment was not on permanent sanctioned posts.
The court upheld the termination of a contractual employee as valid, emphasizing that rights are governed by the contract terms, and principles of natural justice do not apply in the same manner to c....
High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution will not issue directions for regularization unless employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular r....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.