IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA nd ON THE 2 OF JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 6083 of 2022 SMT. SWAPNIL DUBEY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

SHRI ARVIND K. SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER.

SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS/STATE.

ORDER This petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

"7.1. This Hon'ble Court may kind enough to set aside the impugned order and respondents be directed to renew petitioner's contract for service or re-employ her in service.

7.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order which deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstance of the case in favour of the petitioner."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has initially served as "Samvida Gramin Prashikshak" under the respondent/Department on contract basis for the year 2007-2009. After due selection, the petitioner was appointed as Village Youth Coordinator Janpad Panchayat, Annuppur vide order dated 19.05.2009. After her appointment, the petitioner continue to work with utmost honesty, sincerity and to the satisfaction of her superiors. Looking to excellent working of the petitioner, the service tenure of the petitioner was being extended from time to time. The petitioner has been working on the aforesaid post since her appointment i.e. 19.05.2009 till Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA

16.04.2013 without any break in service.

3. It is submitted that her services have been terminated by Joint Director, Sports and Youth Welfare, Government of M.P. Against the said order of termination, the petitioner has filed writ petition being Writ Petition No.8675 of 2013. The same was disposed off vide order dated 12.10.2017 wherein termination order was set aside and it was observed that the petitioner's contract period is still subsisting then he will be reinstated without backwages and if the contract period is over then it is hereby clarified that her removal vide impugned order dated 16.04.2013 would not come in the way for future employment in the fold of the State Government. Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking regularization of her service being W.P. No.18443 of 2017. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.11.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioner was a contractual employee appointed for a particular period. He continuously worked from 19.05.2009 to 16.04.2013 without any break.

4. A specific question was put to the petitioner that after passing of the order by this Court in Writ Petition No.8675 of 2013, she was reinstated and what was the contractual period whether it was renewed at any point of time. The petitioner's counsel could not point out the aforesaid. There was no observation made by the writ court regarding continuation of services of the petitioner. It was only observed that if the contract still subsists then she be reinstated without back wages. However, the petitioner could not point out that her contractual period was continued and whether it was renewed after passing of the order passed by this Court at any point of time. In absence of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA any such document that could be placed on record, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner being a contractual employee has a limited right as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: -

"Where the relationship of master and servant is purely contractual, it is well settled that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even if the termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal or otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of the employee i