This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a contract appointment. The petitioner's appointment was co-terminus with a project ending on 31/03/95, and the court found no evidence to justify continuation of service.
The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
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.
CW 4366/95
//1//
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4366/1995 Smt. Shahina Jahid Versus Raj. Co-operative Dairy Fed. Ltd & Ors
Date of Order ::: 03/11/09
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, for petitioner Mr.VL Mathur, for respondents-Dairy Federation
Petitioner joined service on contract
basis in a project initially for two years on
the the post of Assistant Manager; however,
lateron, fixed in regular pay scale and
because of project having come to an end on
31/03/95, her services were terminated/
dispensed with vide order dt.80/09/95 (Ex.4) –
validity whereof has been assailed herein.
Initially petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Manager (Mahila) under Rajasthan
Women Dairy Project on a monthly consolidated
sum of Rs.3,000/- vide order dt.17/02/92
(Ann.1) for a period of one year and Cl.(ii)
of the terms & conditions of contract,
postulates that this appointment is for two
years or till expiry of the project, whichever
is earlier, purely on adhoc basis. However,
vide order dt. 30/09/94 (Ann.5) she was fixed
in the regular pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/-
w.e.f. 18/06/93 on the same terms & conditions
CW 4366/95 //2//
of contract and while holding post in regular
pay scale, her services were terminated by
giving one month's advance notice vide order
dt.08/09/95 (Ann.13) on the premise that the
project has come to an end on 31/03/95.
Counsel for petitioner submits that
the project in which petitioner was appointed
is still operating and other similarly
situated persons having been appointed
alongwith her in the project on the post of
Mahila Anudeshak (Female Instructor) were
allowed to continue.Counsel further submits
that her appointment was co-terminus with the
project and if the project is still operative,
dispensing with her service in such
circumstances cannot be said to be justified
and action of respondents is violative of Art.
14 & 16 of the Constitution.
In the reply filed by respondents, it
has been specifically averred that the project
in which the petitioner was appointed has come
to an end on 31/03/95 and her appointment was
co-terminus with the completion of project and
once the project, has come to end on 31/03/95,
her services have been terminated as per terms
& conditions of contract, which cannot be said
to be arbitrary or violative of Art.14 & 16 of
CW 4366/95 //3//
the Constitution of India.
Petitionerhasplacedcertain
documents alongwith rejoinder that too also
disclose that services of petitioner were
terminated as per term & conditions of
contract; and schedule appended thereto
discloses that female instructor working in
district Zila Milk Dairy but no inference can
be drawn that they were appointed in the same
project in which petitioner was appointed.
Even additional affidavit filed by petitioner
nowhere discloses about the fact that the
project in which she was appointed, was
operating while her services were dispensed
with or till the period matter has been taken
up for hearing.
Whilepetitionerwasinitially
appointed on contract basis and her services
were regulated as per terms & conditions of
the agreement executed between the parties to
the contract and Cl.(ii)whereof relevant for
the purpose reads ad infra:
“(ii) That this appointment
will be a contract appointment for
a period of two years or till the
expiry of the project period
whichever is earlier on purely on
adhoc basis. On expiry of the
tenure of contract, you will have
CW 4366/95
//4//
no claim over RCDF/Union in lieu of
the services rendered by you.”
Cl.(ii)(supra)clearlypostulatesthat
appointment was initially for a period of two
years or till expiry of project, whichever is
earlier. Petitioner's appointment after expiry
of period of two years certainly remained co-
terminus with the project and this fact has
come on record duly averred in the reply and
so also depicts from the order impugned,
itself that the project has come to an end on
31/03/95 and on the said premise her services
were terminated.
As regards submission made by Counsel
for the petitioner that the project is still
operating and other similarly situated
employees like Mahila Anudeshak are continuing
in service, there is no material on record,
from which this Court could infer that other
two Mahila Anudeshak were also appointed in
the same project alongwith petitioner and no
material has come on record by which it can be
inferred that the project in which she was
appointed was operating on the date of passing
of the order impugned or it is still
operating. In the opinion of this Court, her
services being co-terminus with the project
which has come to an end on 31/03/95, the
CW 4366/95 //5//
respondent has not committed any error or
violated any provisions of law while
terminating her services.
Consequently, writ petition being
devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p.5/
4366CW95Nov4-DsContr.doc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether termination of petitioner's contract services upon expiry of the project period was justified under the terms of engagement.
Whether the termination was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Smt. Shahina Jahid
Raj. Co-operative Dairy Fed. Ltd
Ajay Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court