Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3306
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaswant Singh, J.
Badal Soni - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 28201 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-04-2018
Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the Respondent No. 1/State; Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3/Punjab Roads and Bridges Development Board
Contractual employees are bound by the terms of their agreement and cannot compel the extension of their tenure if the project for which they were appointed has been completed.
Headnote:
Contractual Employee - Extension of Tenure - Punjab Roads and Bridges Development Board Act, 1998, Section 3, Section 5 - The court found that the petitioner, appointed on a contractual basis, was bound by the terms of the agreement governing his tenure and conditions of appointment. The project for which he was appointed had been completed, and the court could not compel the respondent to extend the agreement, as it would amount to back door entry and increase unnecessary burden over the Board-Respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as a Project Manager (Environment) on a contractual basis by the Punjab Roads and Bridges Development Board, sought direction to prevent the termination of his services and allow him to continue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was governed by a contractual agreement, and the project for which he was appointed had been completed, thus his services were not required. The petition was dismissed, with the direction for the respondent to clear all outstanding dues of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the extension of the petitioner's contractual tenure, the applicability of the Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Out Sourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016, and the alleged violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, being appointed on a contractual basis, was bound by the terms of the agreement governing his tenure and conditions of appointment. The completion of the project for which he was appointed meant that his services were not required, and the court could not compel the respondent to extend the agreement.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, with the direction for the respondent to clear all outstanding dues of the petitioner within a month.
JUDGMENT
Jaswant Singh, J. - Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to respondents not to dispense with services of the petitioner and allow him to continue.
2. The Punjab Roads and Bridges Development Board (for short 'Board') was constituted in terms of Section 3 of Punjab Roads and Bridges Development Board Act, 1998 (for short 'Act'). As per Section 5 of the said Act, Board may with the approval of the government create such posts and appoint such Officers and other employees as it may consider necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions. As per Section 5(2) of the Act, the conditions of service of Officers and other employees appointed by Board shall be regulated by the Regulations made by Board. The petitioner was appointed as Project Manager (Environment) on contract basis by Board and for said purpose, an agreement dated 16.04.2018 was executed between petitioner and Board. The appointment letter dated 26.03.2012 was issued wherein it was specifically mentioned that appointment is on contractual basis, for a period of one year which may be extended. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner could be removed from services at any time on one calendar month's notice. The tenure of petitioner was extended from time to time and as per agreement dated 22.11.2017, the tenure was extended up to 31.02.2017 or till his services are required whichever is earlier. The petitioner was party to said agreement and it is not a case of the petitioner that there was unilateral agreement whereas petitioner consciously executed said agreement which was extended from time to time.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that petitioner is having additional charge of Project Manager (Road Safety) since May' 2012 and he has earned degree of Bachelor of Engineering and Post Graduate Degree in Environment from reputed University. State Government has brought Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Out Sourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016 and petitioner being contractual employee is protected by said Act. The Punjab Government vide instructions dated 28.08.2017 has directed departments in the State of Punjab that services of such employees, who are already working on contract or through out-sourcing Agency and Administrative Department need them, be extended till 31.03.2018 or till the decision of Government or court with regard to Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Out Sourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016. Mr. P.N. Roy as well Mr. Sandeep Sharma were appointed on contractual basis like petitioner but their services have been extended beyond 31.12.2017 and non extension of contract of the petitioner amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent has contended that petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and agreement was extended from time to time. In the agreement, it was categorically made clear that extension is for a particular period and in the last agreement also it was mentioned that tenure is extended up to 31.12.2017. The petitioner was appointed for a particular project and said project has come to an end in July' 2017. The accounts of Board stand closed in December' 2017 and project stands completed so there is no question of extension of tenure of the petitioner. The petitioner was very much aware at the time of appointment that he has been appointed on contractual basis and his appointment was not made as per normal procedure adopted for the appointment of employees of Government. Therefore, he has no right to claim extension on the basis of afore-stated Act of 2016 and instructions of the Government.
5. After having heard arguments of both the counsels and scrutinized record of the case, this Court finds that present petition is bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed. The conceded position as e
