Back
2012 Supreme(All) 1381
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.P. MEHROTRA AND MAHENDRA DAYAL, JJ.
SANTOSH KUMAR ....Appellant
Versus
MUKHYA KARYAPALAK ADHIKARI, U.P.K.T.G.B. AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
(Special Appeal No. 1066 of 2004, decided on 23rd May, 2012)
Counsel :
V.K.S. Chaudhary, O.P. Mishra, Kunal Ravi Singh and Smt. Manjari Singh for the Appellant; Rajiv Sharma for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Termination—Class IV employee—Contractual basis—After finalisation of contract work—Neither illegal nor erroneous in eyes of law—In the instant case, appellant was appointed purly on contractual basis as Class IV employee in U.P. Khadi Gramodyog Board—He was terminated from service when contractual work was finalised—Single Judge, rightly dismissed his writ petition, as there was no legal error in termination. [Paras 8 and 9]
(B) Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952—Chapter IX, Rule 10—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Special Appeal—Single Judge order—Practice and procedure is that documents which were not part of record of writ petition, if filed in special appeal—Cannot be considered for examining correctness of decision of single Judge—But in the instant case, High Court permitted filing of documents in special appeal and considered them while deciding special appeal, as elaborate submissions were made by counsels of both parties. [Para 12]
(C) Termination—Class IV employee—Contractual basis—After finalisation of contract work—Fact that there was proposal for filling backlog vacancies of Class IV posts, which was issued prior to appointment of appellant on Class IV post—Cannot help appellant, because benefit of that proposal will be available to only those who were already in employment on date of issuance of that proposal—As such, denial of benefit to appellant—Not discreminatory. [Paras 21 and 23]
(D) Termination—Class IV employee—Fact that certain other such employees who were terminated are continuing in service on basis of stay order of High Court obtained by them in their writ petition—Cannot help appellant—His plea that he is also entitled to continue—Not accepted. [Paras 26 to 28]
By the Court.—The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28789 of 2004 filed by the petitioner-appellant.
2. It appears that by the order dated 7.3.2003, the petitioner-appellant was engaged on contractual basis by the Chief Executive Officer, U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board, Lucknow for performing the work of Class-IV category on payment of Rs. 2,500/- per month. Copy of the said order dated 7.3.2003 is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the Stay Application filed with the Special Appeal and appears at Page 20 of the Paper Book of the Special Appeal. Pursuant to the said order dated 7.3.2003, the petitioner-appellant submitted his joining in the Office of the District Gramodyog Officer, Banda on 1.4.2003. The joining letter is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the Stay Application filed with the Special Appeal, and appears at page 21 of the Paper Book of the Special Appeal.
3. It further appears that by the order dated 26.6.2004, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board, Lucknow, the engagement of the petitioner-appellant, on contractual basis, was terminated with effect from the afternoon of 5.7.2004 on the ground that the contractual services of the petitioner-appellant were no more required for the work of the U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board, Lucknow. Copy of the said order dated 26.6.2004 is annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit accompanying the Stay Application filed with the Special Appeal, and appears at page 31 of the Paper Book of the Special Appeal.
4. The petitioner-appellant thereupon filed the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28789 of 2004 before this Court. As noted above, the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 28.7.2004 dismissed the said Writ Petition. Relevant portion of the said judgment and order dated 28.7.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge is as under:
“.................The appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis which has not been renewed on the ground that there is no work available for the petitioner. Engagement on contract does not vest the petitioner with any legal right to regular appointment. No writ for enforcement of contract of personal service can be issued. The writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed........”
5. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present Special Appeal.
6. In the Special Appeal, various affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioner-appellant from time to time, and the respondents have filed their replies to such affidavits. The petitioner-appellant has filed rejoinder-affidavits in reply to such replies. Various documents, which were not filed in the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge, have been filed in the present Special Appeal, and submissions are sought to be made on the basis of such documents.
7. We have heard Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents at length, and perused the record.
8. As regards the engagement of the petitioner-appellant by the order dated 7.3.2003 for performing the work of Class-IV category, it has not been disputed on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that the said engagement was purely contractual in nature, and the same was to continue until further orders.
9. By the order dated 26.6.2004 the engagement of the petitioner-appellant, on contractual basis, was terminated on the ground that his contractual services were no longer required by the U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board. In our opinion, as the engagement of the petitioner-appellant was purely contractual in nature, the termination of such engagement by the order dated 26.6.2004 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. No stigma has been cast on the petitioner-appellant while terminating his engagement
