Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 3233
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar and M.M.S.Bedi JJ.
Arun Lata
Versus
State Of Haryana
CWP No. 12449 of 2006,
of,
CWP No. 12449 of 2006,
Decided On : AUGUST 10, 2006
Contractual employees do not acquire the right to hold a post on a permanent/regular basis.
Headnote:
Contractual Employee - Employment Rights - The court held that a contractual employee does not acquire any right to hold the post on a permanent/regular basis, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. V/s. Uma Devi and Ors.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractual teacher, sought relief after being relieved of her duties upon the joining of a regular appointed person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted as contractual employees do not acquire any right to hold the post on a permanent/regular basis.
Issues: The issue revolved around the petitioner's claim for reinstatement as a contractual employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that contractual appointees do not acquire any right of continuation in service, as established by the Supreme Court precedent.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as wholly without merit.
, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed on 24.9.1997 on the post of C and V teacher. The nature of the appointment was contractual on a fixed salary of Rs.3500/-. She joined the service on 1.10.1997 ( Annexure P.2) and was relieved on 27.4.1998 on the joining of Shri Charanjit Singh, Punjabi teacher ( Annexure P.5 ). She made numerous representations stating that certain similarly situated persons have also been given appointment. Accordingly a prayer has been made by her that the relieving order dated 27.4.1998 ( Annexure P.5) be quashed and she be reinstated in service.
2. Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted because a contractual employee does not acquire any right to hold the post on permanent/ regular basis.
3. It is clear from the appointment letter issued to the petitioner that the nature of her appointment is contractual at a fixed salary of Rs.3500/-. She has been relieved of her duties on 27.4.1998 when the regular appointed person has joined. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. V/s. Uma Devi and Ors. has laid down that such contractual appointees do not acquire any right of continuation in service.
4. Therefore, we find no substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel.
5. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
