IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.
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
WP(C) No. 1151 of 2023 CM No. 2683 of 2023 c/w CCP(S) No. 169 of 2023
Decided on : 10-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners sought to quash disengagement from contractual employment and to continue services until May 2024, citing Government Order No. 398-JK(HME) of 2021 - Court found that contractual employment does not confer a vested right to continuation beyond the agreed term - The petitioners were engaged for a specified period due to COVID-19 and their services were lawfully terminated upon closure of temporary hospitals. (Paras 1, 18, 24)
(B) Contractual Employment - The principle that contractual employment does not create a right to permanent employment was affirmed - The court emphasized that the termination of a fixed-term contract does not automatically entitle the employee to continue in employment. (Paras 18, 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were engaged on a contractual basis for a temporary COVID hospital as per Government Order No. 398-JK(HME) of 2021, which allowed for extensions based on performance. They were disengaged on 19.04.2023 after the closure of the hospitals, despite their claims of continued need for their services. (Paras 3, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the petitioners had no unfettered right to continue their employment as their engagement was temporary and contingent upon the operational needs of the COVID hospitals, which were no longer in service. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners had a right to continue their employment beyond the contractual term and the legality of their disengagement. (Paras 1, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners' contractual engagement was temporary and did not confer a right to permanent employment, affirming that the termination was lawful as it aligned with the terms of their contract and the closure of the hospitals. (Paras 18, 24)
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were not entitled to continue their services. (Paras 25)
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:-
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
03. The case of the petitioners is that in terms of Government Order No. 398-JK (HME) of 2021 dated 18.05.2021, sanction was accorded to the establishment of a 500 bedded temporary Covid Hospitals one each at Jammu and Srinagar, in collaboration with Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), Ministry of Defence, Government of India and accordingly 1366 posts across various categories were created to facilitate the operation of these hospitals. The said order also stipulated that the administrative control of these hospitals would lie with the Principals of the Government Medical Colleges of Jammu and Srinagar. Furthermore, the posts were established for a period of three years, and initially for a period of one year which included posts of physicians anesthetists, pediatricians and medical officers, technical staff and paramedical staff.
04. Further case of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 2 vide Government Order No. 398-JK(HME) of 2021 dated 18-05-2021 issued advertisement notices for filling up of posts of Medical Officers, Pharmacist, Lab Technician, X-Ray Technician, Junior Staff Nurse etc. in the newly created 500 bedded Covid Hospitals, the same were to be filled up for a period of one year extendable upto maximum of three years (one year at a time and further extension subject to good performance and conduct).
05. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they responded to the aforementioned advertisement notices and eventually came to be selected as Junior Staff Nurses, Pharmacists, Nursing Supervisors, Lab Technicians, X-Ray Technicians and Medical Officers and pursuant to their selection, the petitioners were engaged and started performing their duties against the posts on which they were engaged.
06. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No. 1 issued Government Order No. 107-JK(HME) of 2022 dated 02-03-2022, whereby it was ordered that all the doctors deployed in the temporary Covid Hospitals in Jammu/Kashmir were repatriated to their original place of posting as the said order was issued keeping in view the decline of Covid-19 cases in UT of J&K and in the same order, it was further mentioned that the Principals of the Government Medical Colleges Srinagar/Jammu shall review the requirement of continuance or otherwise of all the contractual staff so that further course of action is taken, accordingly.
07. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 2 issued a Communication No. GMC/2022/470 dated 29.08.2022 to respondent No. 1 requesting for the extension of the contractual doctors, paramedics by another one year as the extension was already being granted in favour of the staff engaged in Covid Hospital Srinagar. In response to which, respondent No. 1 vide
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.
Retrospective disengagement of long-serving contractual employee illegal if duties continued post-tenure; replacement by another contractual impermissible, entitling continuation till regular incumbe....
Point of Law : Re-engagement of the petitioners after the first contractual period was over will not amount to unfair practice.
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.