The Bombay High Court held that an ad-hoc employee does not have a right to continue employment if the employer chooses to end the arrangement, nor can they be replaced by another ad-hoc employee. Consequently, the petition for continuation was dismissed.
The prayer for continuation of ad-hoc employment was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 WP 93.2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
WRIT PETITION NO. 93 OF 2012
(Ritesh Shriram Pandit VS Mah. State Power Generation Co. Ltd. and ors.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's Orders
Mr. Ajit M. Gholap, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent-State Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 5
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
M.T. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 11.01.2012
P.C.:-
1. Heard. The petitioner is an
ad-hoc employee. The petitioner
contends that he should be
continued till the regularly
selected candidate is available.
2. Shri Godsay, learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4
makes a categorical statement that
out of three posts, two are already
filled by the regularly selected
candidates and on the third post,
though a candidate is selected, he
has sought extension for a period
till2.2.2012andinall
probability, he will be joining on
2.2.2012.
2 WP 93.2012
3. An ad-hoc employee has a
limited right to the extent that
he cannot be replaced by another
ad-hoc employee. Ad-hoc employee
also does not have a right to
continue, if the employer does not
want to continue the ad-hoc
arrangement.
4. In that view of the matter,
no relief as claimed in the
Petitioncanbegranted.
Rejected.
Sd/Sd/-
arp
[M. T. JOSHI, J. ] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an ad-hoc employee has a right to continue employment until a regularly selected candidate joins.
Whether an ad-hoc employee can be replaced by another ad-hoc employee.
Ritesh Shriram Pandit
Mah. State Power Generation Co. Ltd.
B. R. GAVAI
M.T. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court