Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
Damni Rajrah, D/o Sh. Dilip Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through its Secretary to the Government of J&K, Health and Medical Education Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER
01. Through the medium of the instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
(a) “Writ of Certiorari quashing endorsement No. GMC/23/DRDO/1237 DATED 19.04.2023 made by respondent no.2 on the communication No. ME- Gztd/198/2022 dated 13.04.2023 issued by the respondent no.1 whereby the petitioners who are working on the contractual basis have been disengaged.
(b) Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue their services on contractual basis till may 2024, as per Government order no.398-JK (HME) of 2021 dated 18.05.2021 owning to their commendable performance during Covid-19 Pandemic and their requirement by respondent no.2 as recommended to the respondent no.1 by her on various occasions and commanding the respondent to release the salary of the petitioners w.e.f January to April 2023 as the petitioners have uninterruptedly performed their duties during the said Covid-19 period”.
02. Before proceeding further in the matter and to clinch the controversy in question, it is apposite to give brief resume of the facts, which, in nutshell, are summarized as under:-
FACT
Contractual employment does not confer a vested right to continuation beyond the agreed term, and termination is lawful if aligned with the contract's terms.
The main legal point established is that the termination of a service contract for contractual employees must be in compliance with the terms of the contract and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Engagement on a contractual basis in project-specific roles does not confer rights to permanency, and long service cannot override express terms of engagement.
Contractual employees are entitled to a notice with regard to the unsatisfactory nature of their service and their services could have been terminated only on a finding being rendered on the same.
Engagement during Covid-19 was temporary and contractual, and the petitioners were bound by the terms and conditions of their engagement. They had no right to claim regularization.
Point of Law : Re-engagement of the petitioners after the first contractual period was over will not amount to unfair practice.
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
