Dismissed

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2022WRIA/1878/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of non-extension orders and mandamus for continued service and wages. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that contract appointees have no right to claim extension, regularization, or continued service after the expiry of their fixed term. The petitioner was thus denied relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the non-extension of services was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1878 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Bishan,Rishabh Kesarwani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Gaurav Bishan and Mr. Rishabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has made following relief:

¶7

"a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 20/10/2021, passed by the Respondent No. 5, and order dated 13/10/2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 (enclosed as Annexure-1 & 2) to this writ petition.

¶8

b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent Authorities, not to disengage the petitioner from working as Block Social Audit Coordinator, at District Development Office, Baghpat and to pay the petitioner minimum wages.

¶9

...."

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Block Social Audit Coordinator on 4th March, 2013 under the scheme of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employee Guarantee (MGNREGA Scheme) for a period of one year on contract basis, a copy of the appointment letter has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The said services of the petitioner were extended on 7th August, 2014 in pursuance of the Government Order dated 31st July, 2014 upto 31st December, 2014 or till the date of continuation of District Social Audit Coordinators/Block Social Audit Coordinators on outsourcing/contract basis. The services of the petitioner was lastly extended upto 30th September, 2021. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that on 6th September, 2018, the petitioner got into a scuffle with two other employees, who were also working as Block Social Audit Coordinators. On analyzing the performance, the services of the petitioner was not extended due to said scuffle.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other two employees, who were also working as Block Social Audit Coordinator, with whom scuffle took place, have not been punished, whereas the petitioner has been punished by not extending the services of the petitioner by District Development Officer, Baghpat vide order dated 18th October, 2021 which has been passed in compliance of the order of the Director, Social Audit, U.P., which is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since

¶12

the performance of the petitioner is throughout excellent, the decision in not extending his services is liable to be set aside. In support of his plea, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the document, which has been brought on record at page-86 of the paper book mentioning the performance of the petitioner for the period between 1st April 2021 to 30th June, 2021.

¶13

In reply, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the appointment of the petitioner on post of Block Social Audit Coordinator was on contract basis and the same was lastly extended upto 30th September, 2021 but the respondentauthority, on the basis of performance, has rightly not decided to extend the services of the petitioner vide the orders impugned. Since the appointment of the petitioner was a contractual appointment, he has no right to question the order impugned. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the performance of the petitioner is satisfactory or excellent. The document which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been brought on record at page-86 of the paper cannot be treated to be the performance report of the petitioner as the same does not bear any signature or seal of any respondent authority. Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in the present writ petition, hence the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully scanned the records of the present writ petition.

¶15

This Court finds that since the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contract basis for a fixed period, he has no right to claim extension or regularization.

¶16

In the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Sm t.) reported in (1992 (3) SCR 712), the Apex Court held that since the appointment was on purely contractual and ad hoc basis on consolidated pay for a fixed period and terminable without notice, when the appointment came to an end by efflux of time, the appointee had no right to continue in the post and to claim regularization in service in the absence of any rule providing for regularization after the period of service. A limited relief of directing that the appointee be permitted on sympathetic consideration to be continued in service till the end of the concerned calendar year was issued. This Court noticed that when the appointment was purely on ad hoc and contractual basis for a limited period, on the expiry of the period, the right to remain in the post came to an end. This Court stated that the view they were taking was the only view possible and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had given relief to the appointee.

¶17

In the case of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and Others reported in [AIR 1994 SC 1638] , a three judge bench of the Apex Court held that ad hoc appointees/temporary employees engaged on ad hoc basis and paid on piece-rate basis for certain clerical work and discontinued on completion of their task, were not entitled to reinstatement or

¶18

regularization of their services even if their working period ranged from one to two years. This decision indicates that if the engagement was made in a particular work or in connection with particular project, on completion of that work or of that project, those who were temporarily engaged or employed in that work or project could not claim any right to continue in service and the High Court cannot direct that they be continued or absorbed elsewhere.

¶19

In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma reported in (1996 (1) SCR 9 72), a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a person appointed on daily wage basis was not an appointee to a post according to Rules. On his termination, on the project employing him coming to an end, the Court could not issue a direction to re-engage him in any other work or appoint him against existing vacancies. This Court said:

¶20

"It is settled law that having made rules of recruitment to various services under the State or to a class of posts under the State, the State is bound to follow the same and to have the selection of the candidates made as per recruitment rules and appointments shall be made accordingly. From the date of discharging the duties attached to the post the incumbent becomes a member of the services. Appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to the Rules."

¶21

Following the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , has held that no employees so appointed on contract or ad hoc basis can claim for regularization or extension on the expiry of their appointments.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no good ground to interfere in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 30.3.2022 Sushil/-

¶25

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.04.01 09:31:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishun Dayal Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Sheela Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Simran Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ragini Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abdul Razzaq Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others