Petitioner sought reinstatement as an Employment Assistant after termination of a contract appointment. The Court held that a fixed-term contract holder cannot claim regularization or continuation of service, and dismissed the writ petition applying Umadevi law.
Petitioner's petition seeking reinstatement with back wages was dismissed.
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.
c^- v^ BENCIi.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P.IS.t. N0. /2011
PETITIONER: Anant Singh, son of Shri Madhav Singh, aged about 27 years, R/o. Village Begaridand, Post Odgi, ,'0 ^••S<€^<i^>--' Tahsil Odgi, District Surguja ^^; ^^.>^c--" ~ ^^' •'v.'<'"n.rl/..-',(C.G.) ^% ^"'•" .<"l'\v '^f "^ VERSUS
^ ^ RESPONDENTS: 1.
^" 2. 3.'
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Departaiient of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] Collector, District Surguja [C.G.] Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surguja (C.G.), Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Odgi, District Surguja "(C.G.),
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION
OZINDIA
As mentioned in the cause title above.
As mentioned in the cause title above
3., PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS MADE.
-e;^~
,-^A ^.
B '•'SSf'
HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETmON (S) No. 720of20Il
PETITIONER : Anant Sin^i.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others.
WRIT PETmON XJNDER AR11CLE 226 QF IHE CONSTmjIIQN OF INDIA
SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Aemhotri, J.
Present: Shri J.P.ShuUa, Advoeate for the petttioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for tfie State/respondent No. 1&2.
OKDERfORALy
(Passed on 07a day of February, 2011)
r,,-''-"^ ^ I tsw^ 1
^
Qn perusal ofthe orda- dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure P/l), it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on coiitract basis for a period ofone year. llie petitioner, afterjoining his dutv on 30.12.2006 and thereafter. his services were eidended by order dated 18.03.2008, till 31.12.2008 and has coiitinued in service for more than 3% years, till passing of the impugped tennination order i.e. 28.06.2010. No record has been produeed to indicate that Ihe term of his appoinhnent was ever extended after 31.12.2008.
6.
As per clause 7 of the appointment order dated 28.12.2006 (Amiexure P/l), it is evident that the confidential report would be maintained and according to performance ofthe candidste, he shall be considered for appomtment on contTact basis fw tfae iiext year. In the impugned temrination order dated 28.6.2010 (Annexure P/5), it is apparent that the petitioner's service has been terminated on account ofhis absence and negligence towards his duties.
It is a trite law that a contract appointee caaiot claim regularization, contmuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment which was temporary for a fixed period and also not in accordance with law and the same was de hors Ihe constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others^, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , Official L'quidator v. Dcyemand cmd others and State of Punjab and Others v. Surfit Singh cmd Others4).
Applying the well settled prineiples of law to the facts of die ease on hand, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Satish K. Agmhotri Judge
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2007) 1 SCC 408 3 (2008)108cci 4 (2009) 9 SGC 514
T^'si -^s&m
|(]S|^^J||fi(gin^t((^dU*Uil[f|pltMlllMIl,||rti]^^
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contract appointee on a fixed-term basis can claim regularization or reinstatement beyond the contract period upon termination due to absence or negligence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and OthersApplied¶38
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Applied¶38
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Official Liquidator v. Demand and othersApplied¶38
Official Liquidator v. Demand and others
State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and OthersApplied¶38
State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others
Anant Singh
State of Chhattisgarh
Satish K. Agmhotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
