Dismissed

Nirmalsinh Prabhatsinh Rana v. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. through Chief Engineer

Gujarat HC27 Sept 2019SCA/10944/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed five petitions seeking regularisation of services for five petitioners. It held that their employment was contractual and project-based, and since they failed to exhaust administrative remedies by withdrawing an industrial dispute, petitions were rejected on grounds of credibility and lack of contractual right to permanency.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; regularization prayers rejected; interim status quo order vacated.

Nirmalsinh Prabhatsinh Rana Vs Gujarat State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10944 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10945 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10947 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10949 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10951 of 2019

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No

¶9

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any No order made thereunder ?

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

NIRMALSINH PRABHATSINH RANA

¶12

Versus

¶13

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH CHIEF ENGINEER

¶14

==========================================================

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

¶17

MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶18

==========================================================

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

¶20

Date : 27/09/2019 COMMON CAV JUDGMENT

¶21

These five petitions constituted a group
containing similar facts and identical issue to be

¶22

Page 1 of 13

¶23

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶24

treated for disposal by this common order having been
notified and heard together.

¶25

1.1Heard learned advocate Mr.T.R. Mishra for
the petitioners and learned advocate Mr.Dipak R. Dave
for the respondent – Gujarat State Electricity
Corporation Limited in all the petitions.

¶26

2.The petitioners have prayed to set aside
order dated 01st February, 2019 whereby their services
came to be terminated at the end of the contractual
period. The petitioners want this Court to declare
and hold that the petitioners could not be terminated
under the garb of contractual appointment. It is
further prayed to declare that the petitioners were
appointed on regular and permanent post and their
services could not have been terminated on the ground
that the appointment was contractual. Yet another
prayer is made to direct the respondent authorities
to regularise the services of the petitioners as
permanent employees.

¶27

3.Drawing the facts from the first captioned
Special Civil Application No.10944 of 2019, the
petitioner was appointed as Medical Assistant on 25th
July, 2012 by one Bhavnagar Energy Company Limited.
It is the case of the petitioner that no appointment
letter was issued but the petitioner has sought to
demonstrate the factum of his employment by producing
the pay-slip for the month of October, 2012. It was
stated that the said Bhavnagar Energy Company Limited
was taken over by Gujarat State Electricity

¶28

Page 2 of 13

¶29

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶30

Corporation Limited by Notification dated 27th August,
2018. According to petitioner, at that stage, order
dated 01st February, 2018 came to be issued whereby
the petitioner came to be appointed as Para Medical
Assistant on contractual basis for a fixed term. The
engagement of the petitioner in service was extended
by issuing order dated 01st February, 2019 till 31st
July, 2019.

¶31

3.1A case is sought to be pleaded that merely
on the ground that the said Bhavnagar Energy Company
Limited was taken over by Gujarat State Electricity
Corporation Limited – respondent herein, the
appointment of the petitioner could not have been
shortened and that the service could not have been
dispensed with. It was pleaded and suggested by
making averments that the appointment to the
petitioner was given in lieu of the fact that the
petitioner was a land loser and that his land was
acquired.

¶32

3.2The petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.10945 of 2019 was appointed as Trainee, Fire &
Safety, whose appointment was of similar kind and
nature. Against this petitioner, like all the
petitioners, termination order of even date was
passed. Petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.10947 of 2019 was appointed as a Computer
Teacher/Instructor also on the fixed term and on
contractual basis whose services was sought to be
terminated by order dated 01st February, 2019. In the
same way, petitioner of fourth petition was also a

¶33

Page 3 of 13

¶34

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶35

Trainee, Fire & Safety who was appointed in the same
fashion. The petitioner of last Special Civil
Application No.10951 of 2019 was contractually
appointed on the post of Assistant (Purchase &
Administration) on 20th January, 2014, whose services
were also sought to be put an end by order of same
date.

¶36

4.The petition was contested and the prayers
were opposed by the respondent. It was stated that a
Lignite Base Pithead Power Project was to be
implemented, for which the State Government assigned
the task to the Bhavnagar Energy Company Limited
(BECL) which was a limited company. It was further
stated that the said BECL ran BECL Vikas Trust with a
benevolent purpose of providing primary medical
facilities to the rural areas nearby to the city and
that the petitioners were originally employed by the
said Trust on a fixed term basis and that the
petitioners were on project employment. It was stated
that at the end of the project of implementing two
power plants, BECL was relieved from its obligation
by the State Government and the present respondent
was assigned the assets.

¶37

4.1While the affidavit-in-reply was filed in
Special Civil Application No.10944 of 2019 only, it
was given out by learned advocate for the respondents
that the contents were uniform to be applied in all
the petitions and that the affidavit filed in one
petition could be treated as defence in all the
petitions. It was further contended in the affidavit

¶38

Page 4 of 13

¶39

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶40

that the contractual appointment of the petitioner
was to come to an end with effect from 31st January,
2019 but since the petitioners represented and
requested to continue for a further period of six
months, it was extended by acceding to such request.
It was emphasised that the appointment was purely of
contractual nature and that at the fag end of the
tenure,petitioners approached this Court.

¶41

4.2While learned advocate for the petitioners
termed the termination of services of the petitioners
as arbitrary and unreasonable to be in violation of
petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, to further point out that they were
offered employment in lieu of their losing their
land, on the other hand, in addition to canvassing
the contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply,
learned advocate for the respondent highlighted yet
another aspect that the petitioners, before
approaching this Court, had approached the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour and the machinery of labour
forum was sought to be activated but the petitioners
withdrew from their case and thereafter filed the
present petition.

¶42

4.3On 29th July, 2019 Rule was issued in all
the petitions. Learned advocate for the parties had
stated at that time that no further pleadings were
required and that they argued all the petitions
finally. As the petitioners were found to be
continued in service on that day, the Court directed
to maintain status quo by both the sides till the

¶43

Page 5 of 13

¶44

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶45

final decision is rendered while reserving the
petitions for orders.

¶46

5.Havingconsideredtherivalcase,
contentions and the pleadings respectively raised,
the case of the petitioners that they were given
employment in lieu of their losing of land, hardly
earns any merit or tenability. Except the bald
statements in the pleadings made in this regard, not
an iota of material could be found on record which
could establish the case of the petitioners on the
said count. There is yet another glaring aspect which
the petitioners did not disclose in their petitions
and which, according to learned advocate for the
respondent, was a vice of suppressio veri.

¶47

5.1It is an uncontroverted position that in the
first instance the petitioners had approached through
their union before the Conciliation Officer,
Bhavnagar to invoke the jurisdiction of the labour
forum stating that they had entered in the service
from 2012 or 2013, as the case may be, on the post in
question and that they were entitled to be treated as
permanent employee from the date of entry and were
entitled to get the benefits equal to those extended
to the employees with permanent status. It was stated
by the petitioners through their union that they
would raise industrial dispute if the demands were
not satisfied. It appears that after such letter
dated 25th March, 2019 to the Conciliation Officer,
reminder was sent on 15th April, 2019, pursuant to
which the Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

¶48

Page 6 of 13

¶49

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶50

Bhavnagar, called the parties for conciliation. Reply
was sought from the respondent-Corporation. At that
stage the petitioners' union appears to have
addressed letter dated 15th May, 2019 to the competent
officer – the Assistant Commissioner of Labour
withdrawing their dispute and not to undertake any
further proceedings in that regard.

¶51

5.2Juxtaposing the prayers made in these
petitions by the petitioners, they are of the same
kind and nature seeking permanency benefit and
regularisation, as was sought to be raised in the
nature of industrial dispute before the labour
authorities. The petitioners having approached the
labour authorities seeking conciliation and seeking
to raise industrial dispute, but subsequently having
dropped their demand and having withdrawn themselves
from the said process, could file this petition
invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution on a weak footing. On this ground
alone, petitions are liable to be rejected.

¶52

6.In any view, nature of employment of all the
petitioners emerging from the facts on record
indicated that they were the contractual appointees.
The petitioners were initially appointed by BECL
through its agency of Trust for the purpose of
project which the BECL was entrusted to implement.
Right from the inception, the appointments of the
petitioners were contractual and project based. It
appears that the letters of appointment when issued
to the petitioners in the year 2018, it was

¶53

Page 7 of 13

¶54

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶55

specifically indicated that their appointment was on
a fixed term and on contract basis.

¶56

6.1From the letter of appointment dated 01st
February, 2018 given to the petitioner of the first
mentioned petition, it could be well discerned that
the fixed term contract was for the duration of one
year from 01st February, 2018 to 31st January, 2019
and that it shall automatically come to an end on
completion of one year. It was a stipulation that the
contractual appointment could be terminated by giving
one month notice and without assigning any reason.
The letter of appointment was given by the Managing
Trustee of the Vikas BECL Vikas Trust Initiative For
Rural Development Trust. Such contractual appointment
was extended for a period of six months at the
request of the petitioners, which was upto 31st July,
2019. The letters of appointment of each of the
petitioners contained similar terms and conditions.

¶57

6.2In Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India

¶58

[AIR 1953 SC 250] the petitioner was an employee of
Directorate General of Resettlement and Employment,
who was removed from contractual employment after
served with the notice of termination. His contract
for service was initially for a period of five years
which was subsequently extended. The Five Judges
Bench of the Supreme Court held that in the action
termination of such kind of employment, the employee
could not complain breach of his fundamental rights
since no right had accrued to him as the employment
was rested in contract and that the termination of

¶59

Page 8 of 13

¶60

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶61

contract did not amount to dismissal or removal.

¶62

6.2.1 The Court observed thus,

¶63

“There was no compulsion on the petitioner to enter
into the contract he did. He was as free under the law
as any other person to accept or to reject the offer
which was made to him. Having accepted, he still has
open to him all the rights and remedies available to
other persons similarly situated to enforce any rights
under his contract which have been denied to him,
assuming there are any, and to pursue in the ordinary
Courts of the land such remedies for a breach as are
open to him to exactly the same extent as other
persons similarly situated. He has not been
discriminated against and he has not been denied the
protection of any laws which others similarly situated
could claim. The petitioner has not been denied any
opportunity of employment or of appointment. He has
been treated just like any other person to whom an
offer of temporary employment under these conditions
was made. His grievance, when analysed, is not one of
personal differentiation but is against an offer of
temporary employment on special terms as opposed to
permanent employment. But of course the State can
enter into contracts of temporary employment and
impose special terms in each case, provided they are
not inconsistent with the Constitution, and those who
chose to accept those terms and enter into the
contract are bound by them, even as the State is
bound.” (Para 10)

¶64

6.3 In State of Orissa v. Chandra Sekhar Mishra

¶65

[(2002) 10 SCC 583] the respondent had been appointed
as Homeopathic Medical Officer. He challenged the
termination of service which was effected by issuance
of notice. The Apex Court rejected the challenge to
the termination to observe that, “when the respondent
was only a contractual employee, there could be no
question of his being granted the relief of being
directed to be appointed as a regular employee”. It
is well settled principle that since the relief for
benefits of regular pay-scale or permanency or
regularisation in service involve going into the
facts and evidence, such relief would not be granted

¶66

Page 9 of 13

¶67

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶68

in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The prayers on this
score by the present petitioners who were contractual
employees, are therefore not well conceived to be
agitated or to be considered in these petitions.

¶69

6.4It is well settled that when the nature of
employment is simply contractual, the scope of
judicial review in respect of such employment and in
respect of termination of services at the end of
contractual period, is very limited. In GRIDCO v.
Sadananda Doloi [(2011) 15 SCC 16] the facts were
akin to one involved in the present case. The
respondent therein was appointed on contractual basis
and the expiry of contractual period of three years
stipulated in the appointment letter, the appellant-
Corporation extended the employment upto certain
period on the same terms and conditions. The employee
made a representation to extend his employment till
his superannuation. While one further extension was
granted, the representation to continue extension did
not find favour with the appellant-Corporation and
the services of the respondent-employee came to be
terminated in terms of the original order of
appointment by paying three months' salary.

¶70

6.4.1In GRIDCO Limited (supra), the Supreme
Court, after considering its own decisions on the
aspect observed thus,

¶71

“... … … we must add that judicial review cannot
extend to the Court acting as an appellate authority
sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court
cannot sit in the arm chair of the Administrator to
decide whether a more reasonable decision or course of
action could have been taken in the circumstances. So

¶72

Page 10 of 13

¶73

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶74

long as the action taken by the authority is not shown
to be vitiated by the infirmities referred to above
and so long as the action is not demonstrably in
outrageous defiance of logic, the writ Court would do
well to respect the decision under challenge.”

¶75

(Para 26)

¶76

6.4.2It was held that where from the orders by
the government for appointment it was clear that the
appointment to be a tenure appointment which was
terminable on three months' notice or on payment of
salary in lieu thereof, the appointment could not be
assumed to be of regular nature. The appointments
were temporary and contract based. It was held that
judicial review was not pervasive extend over such
disputes and the court could not substitute its own
view in such matters unless mala fides or patent
arbitrariness is established. The order of
termination of the contractual employment at the end
of the contract period, it was held, was not open to
judicial review.

¶77

6.5Similar principle was propounded by the
Supreme Court in Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof. R.C. Deka,
Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences
[(2018) 3 SCC 218]. The petitioner was employed on
contractual basis, to whom the extension was denied.
It was held that employee on a contract basis has no
right to have the contract renewed from time-to-time.
In absence of any statutory or other right for
extension of contract being established, and when
there was nothing to indicate that appointment of the
petitioner was made in accordance with regular
procedure, no right could be said to be accruing in
favour of the petitioner. Thus, the Apex Court

¶78

Page 11 of 13

¶79

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶80

underlined the above principle that no contractual
employee has a right to have his or her contract
extended from time-to-time. Any enforceable right is
not created for a contractual employee to continue in
the employment.

¶81

6.6The contractual employment is a special kind
of employment where writ court have circumscribed no
role to play when the contractual period of
employment is put to an end and services are
terminated. The renewal of contract of employment
would entirely rest with the discretion of the
employer. The availability of work or the usefulness
of the employee engaged under contract may be the
relevant factors for the employer to be considered.
More particularly, when the letter of appointment
contain the terms in black and white making the
appointment evidently in the nature ad hoc, there
does not exist any right to continue beyond the term
of contract. Nor there is right to get the
contractual period of employment extended.

¶82

7.For the foregoing reasons and discussion,
the present petitions are devoid of merits. None of
the reliefs could be booked for the petitioners. The
petitions are liable to be dismissed. They all are
hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim order
of maintenance of status quo is hereby vacated.

¶83

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

¶84

FURTHER ORDER

¶85

At this stage, learned advocate Mr.T.R.
Mishra submitted that the interim stay of maintaining

¶86

Page 12 of 13

¶87

C/SCA/10944/2019 CAV JUDGMENT

¶88

status quo operating till today may be extended to
enable the petitioners to approach the higher forum.

¶89

Since there was no serious objection on part
of the respondents, both the parties are directed to
maintain status quo which is operating as on date
till 15th October, 2019.

¶90

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

¶91

Anup

¶92

Page 13 of 13

Nirmalsinh Prabhatsinh Rana v. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. through Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmalsinh Prabhatsinh Rana v. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. through Chief Engineer

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

Kirit Laxmanbhai Rajput Vs State of Gujarat

Mehta Zankhana Dilipbhai Vs State of Gujarat

Hardik Pradipbhai Joshi Vs State of Gujarat

Chandrasinh Pratapsinh Chudasma Vs State of Gujarat

Riteshkumar Jerambhai Tandel Vs State of Gujarat

Solanki Vinubhai Muljibhai Vs Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. through Chief Engineer