Back
1981 Supreme(HP) 56
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
VYOM PRAKASH GUPTA
MOHAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 129 of 1981
Decided On : 10/14/1981
For the Petitioners:Miss. Kamlesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents:Shri Indar Singh, Advocate General and Sfari Kapil Dev Sud, Advocate.
Employees initially employed on contract basis for a specific project, who continued in service after the expiry of the contract without any express agreement, and were treated as Government employees for all practical purposes, are entitled to be treated as regular temporary employees of the Central Government.
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT - CONTRACT BASIS - REGULAR TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES - STATUS OF PETITIONERS - BEAS PROJECT - PUNJAB RE-ORGANISATION ACT, 1966 - SECTION 80(3) - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - ESTOPPEL - DELAY AND LACHES - LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Petitioners, initially employed on contract basis for Beas Project, became Central Government employees under Section 80(3) of Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966. After expiry of contract, petitioners continued in service without any express contract, hence treated as regular temporary employees. Termination of services without following "last come first go" principle and retaining juniors is discriminatory.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, employed on contract basis for Beas Project, claimed regular temporary employee status under the Central Government after the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966. Their services were terminated in 1981.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners were initially employed on contract basis for two years, but continued in service after the expiry of the contract. They were treated as Government employees for all practical purposes, enjoying gazetted rank benefits. The Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, made them Central Government employees. No fresh agreement was entered after the expiry of the original contract, and the petitioners were continuing in service without any express contract. They were entitled to be treated as regular temporary employees of the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were employees of the Central Government on contract basis or regular temporary employees? 2. Whether the termination of petitioners' services was valid? 3. Whether the principle of estoppel and delay and laches applied in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners were initially employed on contract basis for two years, but continued in service after the expiry of the contract. They were treated as Government employees for all practical purposes, enjoying gazetted rank benefits. The Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, made them Central Government employees. No fresh agreement was entered after the expiry of the original contract, and the petitioners were continuing in service without any express contract. They were entitled to be treated as regular temporary employees of the Central Government. 2. The termination of petitioners' services was not valid as it violated the principle of "last come first go" and retained juniors in service. 3. The principle of estoppel did not apply as the petitioners never accepted their position in any other capacity except as temporary employees and always claimed regularization. The petition was also not barred by delay and laches as it was filed soon after the termination of services.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioners were declared regular temporary employees of the Central Government. The termination of their services was held to be invalid.
V. P. Gupta, .J.—In 1960 the State of Punjab and Rajasthan had started the construction of Beas Project and a Board known as Bsas Control Board was constituted by the Central Government on 10-2-1961. The decisions of this Board were to be implemented by the Punjab Government which was administering and executing the work of the Beas Project.
2. The petitioners in pursuance to an advertisement in the Tribune dated 27-2-1965 issued by the General Manager, Beas Project Talwara Township, District Hoshiarpur, applied for the posts of Junior Specialists. The Junior Specialists were to hold the charge of Sub-Divisions of the Beas Sutlej Link Project and their appointments were to be on contract basis for a period ranging from 3 years to 5 years. The petitioner were selected for the posts and were appointed for a period of two years in the first instance. The appointment letters were issued to the petitioners (specimens of letters are Annexures p. 2 and p. 3). The petitioners after their selection and appointment executed agreements (specimen of agreement dated 11-2-1966 is Annexure P. 4).
3. The petitioners were posted as Junior Specialists against the vacancies of Sub-Divisional Officer (Annexures P. 5 and P. 6). The terms of the service of the petitioners were being extended from time to time, firstly for period of two years and then for a period of one year. The services of the petitioners were terminated on 30-6-1981 because no orders of extension were issued from 30-6-1981 on wards.
4. The petitioners have now filed the present petition on 2-6-1981, claiming that they are the employees of the Central Government and that their services cannot be terminated. The petitioners rely upon the judgment [Jaswant Singh and others etc. v. Union of India and others etc., A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 115] and claim that they be treated as regular temporary employees of the Central Government.
5. The petition was contested by the respondents and the claim of the petitioners was denied. The respondents have alleged that the petitioners have no right to claim themselves as regular temporary employees of the Central Government and that they were employed on a contract basis against specified posts. It is further alleged that the petitioners services have been rightly been terminated and the present writ petition should be dismissed as the petitioners have no right to the posts and are in fact not Government employees. The plea of estoppel has been raised by the respondents on the grounds that the petitioners had specifically agreed to work on contract basis for which the petitioners had given undertakings in writing in 1975. It is also alleged that the petitioners had been specifically told in 1973 that they are not Government employees and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay. I have heard Miss Kamlesh Sharma for the petitioners and Shri Inder Singh, Advocate General and K. D. Sud, Advocate for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners entered the services originally on contract basis for a period of two years in February, 1966, but before the expiry of the period of two years the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the Punjab Act) was enforced and in accordance with the provisions of Section 80 of the Punjab Act, the petitioners became employees of the Central Government It was also contended that terms or the conditions of service of the petitioners could only be changed or varied with the permission of the Central Government. The learned counsel also contended that at the latest the agreement/contract of the petitioners expired after five years and, therefore, after expiry of five years either a new contract had to be entered between the petitioners and the Central Government or the petitioners are to be treated as employees of the Central Government. The least status which could be given to the petitioner was that of regular tem
