Disposes of a writ application seeking to quash notification banning NGOs from running CPL schools and protect petitioners' services. Court notes services depend on subsisting scheme but no counsel addressed current status, directing disposal conditionally.
Writ petition disposed of conditionally; services dependent on scheme subsistence.
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.
OJC No. 9279 of 2000
21.04.2016 Heard Mr. S. Mishra on behalf of Mr. J. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
S. Swain, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and learned Central Government Counsel
for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2.
The petitioners have filed this application seeking to quash the impugned paras 9 and
10 of clause-IV of the notification dated 11.11.1999 under Annexure-4 and further seeking for
a direction to the opposite parties not to entrust the running of Special Schools/Rehabilitati
on Centres of the National Child Labour Project of Gajapati to Non-Governmental Organizations
and also protect their services.
Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners having
been discharged their under the scheme, their services should be protected even after closure
of the scheme and they are entitled to the benefits at par with counterparts of the regular es
tablishment of the opposite parties.
Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 states that admittedly the p
etitioners have been engaged under the scheme for a particular period. If the period has alrea
dy expired, the petitioners cannot claim for regularization of their services.
Learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 states that the
benefit having been extended under the scheme, till the scheme is subsisting the petitioners
are entitled to get the benefit. But after closure of the scheme, the benefit claimed by the p
etitioners at par with regular establishment is not permissible under law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it a
ppears that the petitioners have been engaged under the scheme. The scheme having been closed,
the petitioners cannot claim for continuance in service as a matter of right. Therefore, the
services of the petitioners depend upon the scheme itself and as such the claim of the petitio
ners can only be extended if the scheme is subsisting. In any case, none of the counsel have a
ddressed the Court as to whether the scheme is subsisting or not. In view of such position, in
the event, the scheme is subsisting as claimed in the writ application, the services of the p
etitioners may not be terminated till the scheme is surviving.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
Dr. B.R. Sarangi,J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners engaged under a closed scheme can claim regularization of services.
Whether petitioners are entitled to benefits at par with regular establishment after scheme closure.
Mr. J. Rath
opposite party nos. 1 and 2
opposite party no. 3
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court