Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Satish Chandra Soni S/o Late Shri Basant Lal Soni – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4783 of 2020
Decided on : 18-01-2024
Headnote:
Contractual Employee - Termination of Contract - The court held that the termination of the petitioner's contractual services based on age was justified as a contractual employee stands on a much lesser footing than a regular employee and his service conditions are governed within the terms and conditions of the contract. The court emphasized that a contract for a limited period cannot be treated in perpetuity by forcing the employer to extend the same as a matter of right.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, over 60 years of age, challenged the termination of his contractual services, arguing that age alone should not be a ground for non-renewal of his contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's age and the nature of his contractual employment justified the termination of his services. The court also noted the absence of any interim protection for the petitioner and the limited duration of the contract.
Issues: Grievance over termination of contractual services based on age, absence of interim protection for the petitioner, and the nature of contractual employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a contractual employee stands on a much lesser footing than a regular employee and that the service conditions are governed within the terms and conditions of the contract. It also highlighted that a contract for a limited period cannot be treated in perpetuity by forcing the employer to extend the same as a matter of right.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's grievance and any pending applications.
ORDER :
1. Grievance of the petitioner herein, who was concededly over 60 years of age and his contractual services at the relevant time were terminated vide an order dated 04.06.2020, is that merely because he was above 60 years, the same is not a legal ground to not renew his contract, as was earlier being done in the past from time to time.
2. When called out for hearing, none appears for the petitioner. The petition has remained pending for more than 3 years without there being any interim protection in favour of the petitioner.
3. In any case, as on today the petitioner would be around 64-65 years old and merely because his services were on contract, he cannot steal march over a regular incumbent. Concededly, a person in regular employment of the Government has to be necessarily retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
4. A contractual employee on the other hand stands on a much lesser footing than a regular employee and his service conditions are governed within the four corners of terms and conditions of the contract. In any case, contract was for a limited period and cannot be treated in perpetuity by forcing the employer to extend the same as a matter of right.
5. As an upshot, no grounds to interfere.
6. Dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
