Engagement on a contractual basis does not confer employee status or rights under government service regulations.

ORDER Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.07.2021 (Annexure A/1) whereby his engagement NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL as Consultant on contract basis had been terminated with immediate effect and has further sought directions to the respondents to give him salary of remaining five months as the contract was for a period of six months, besides praying for providing him Rs. 20,000/~ for case expenses.

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that respondent no. 1 issued a Notification vide their letter No. 1-30/2020/HR-LSA/2 dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure A/2) and asked the applications from retired Government servants / retired officials of PSUs or Research Organizations with adequate computer knowledge for engagement of Consultants for the post of Assistant Director and Junior Telecom Officer on purely temporary contractual basis in the office of Sr. Deputy Director General Haryana LSA. As per the notification, applications were invited only from the retired Government servants.

The applicant being the retired officer of BSNL, applied for the post and was issued appointment letter dated 16.04.2021 (Annexure A/3). The applicant joined as Consultant on 07.06.2021 and started working. The respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the applicant vide order 07.07.2021 (Annexure A/1). He has stated that pre- mature termination of his contract was not as per the directions of the letter of engagement dated 16.04.2021.

NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has taken preliminary objection that the present O.A. is not maintainable before this Tribunal because the applicant was not an employee of the respondent-department but was only engaged post-retirement purely on contractual basis. As such, before entering into the merits of the case, we will first deal with the maintainability of the present O.A. before this Tribunal.

4. Admittedly, the applicant was a retired employee and he was engaged as Consultant in the O/o Sr. Deputy Director General, Haryana LSA vide order dated 16.04.2021 (Annexure A/3) by respondent No. 2 for a period of six months from the date of joining on temporary contractual basis.

5. The Notification dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure A/2) vide which the respondents invited applications for engagement of Consultants for the post of Assistant Director and IJunior Telecom Officer on temporary contract basis in the office of O/o Sr. Deputy Director General, Haryana LSA and in response to which the applicant had applied and was issued engagement letter clearly stipulates as below (relevant extracts:-

" XXXXX Sr. DDG, Haryana License Service Area (LSA), Ambala, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications proposes to engage following NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL consultants on purely temporary and on contractual basis for a period of Six months or till regular manpower is posted, whichever is earlier:

a) Assistant Director - 2 b) Junior Telecom Officer - 1 Applications are invited from retired Government servants/retired officials of PSUs or Research Organizations with adequate computer knowledge and preferable having knowledge of DoT field unit works as mentioned in the section No. 1 (i.e. Nature of Duties) of this notifications. The consultants will be engaged on short term contract basis initially for a period of Six months. XXxxx

13. Termination of Contract:-

The contract may be terminated by either of the party with prior notice of 30 days.

The above said engagement is purely on temporary and contractual basis. The selected candidates will be governed by the provisions or the guidelines for engagement of consultants in DoT as amended from time to time XXXXX"

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before us the judgment dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of As