The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order discharging a contract employee. The Court held that the employee did not fulfill the terms for permanent absorption and that a fixed-term contract cannot be a basis for such claims.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P(MD)No.4905 of 2011
N.Muralikrishnan
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The General Manager (NW2), (Appointing Authority), State Bank of India, Human Resources Department, Local Head Office, Circle Top House, Post Box No.737, No.16, College Lane, Chennai -6.
2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chinnatharapuram Branch, 10/122-B, Main Road, Chinnatharapuram, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings HR:RC :104 dated 12.04.2011 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondent -2 : Mr.S.Sethuraman, For Respondent -1 : No appearance
ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 12.04.2011 and quash the same as illegal.
2.The order impugned dated 12.04.2011 issued by the respondents states that the writ petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of two years from 02.01.2009 to 01.01.2011. The Executive Committee of Central Board of the Bank, in their meeting held on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.07.2010 approved a policy for permanent absorption of Contract employees at the initial stage of pay, subject to certain terms and
2
conditions. However, the writ petitioner had not fulfilled the terms and conditions for permanent absorption. Admittedly the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was on contract basis.
“This respondent submits that on 05.12.2008 the offer of appointment was made and communicated to the petitioner. In para(2) of the offer it was clearly made that his appointment in the Bank will be purely contractual in nature initially for 2 years from his date of joining and contract of appointment will be renewable on completion of contractual period depending upon your performance suitable and need of the Bank. The petitioner has joined the Karur Branch from 19.01.2009 to 28.08.2009. From Karur Branch, the petitioner was transferred to 2nd respondent Branch on 28.08.2009. The petitioner was irregular in attending the work though his initial period of contract was for 2 years from 05.12.2008, the petitioner attended the office only for 7 months i.e. from 19.01.2009 to 28.08.2009. Since the petitioner was unable to perform his part of contract, the respondent felt that his performance was not satisfactory and not inclined to extend the contractual period. After taking into consideration of the petitioner's attendance of 7 months period as against the contractual period of 2 years, the respondent has passed the order of discharge dated 12.04.2011. Since the petitioner's attendance was only one third portion of the contractual period, the respondent having no other alternative has passed the discharge order after completion of the contractual period”.
4.This Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a specific period of two years and even for extending the benefit of permanent absorption, it is stated that the writ petitioner had not fulfilled the terms and conditions. Further the writ petitioner had served only for seven months as Contract Labourer and therefore his claim for permanent absorption cannot be considered.
5.Contract appointment for a specific period cannot be a ground for claiming permanent absorption or regularisation. The writ petitioner knowing the fact the initial appointment was on contract basis and joined in the respondents bank. Once the terms and conditions of the contract is agreed upon by an employee, then, he cannot go back and claim permanent absorption or regularisation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, the claim made out in this writ petition deserves no consideration at all.
3
6.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
+1cc to M/S.B.Saravanan, Advocate SR.No. 47600 +1cc to M/S.S.Sethuraman, Advocate SR.No. 47405
W.P(MD)No.4905 of 2011
dsk JM/KKR/SAR 2/07.03.2018/3P/3C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a contract employee appointed for a specific period can claim permanent absorption after failing to complete the contractual terms.
Whether an order discharging a contract employee for insufficient service duration is maintainable in a writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Muralikrishnan
The General Manager (NW2), State Bank of India
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chinnatharapuram Branch
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
