Dismissed

Narottam Lal Mahavar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2014SAW/635/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed an appeal by a contractual employee against his discontinuation. The bench held that no statutory right attaches to purely contractual appointments, especially when the scheme ends and budget is unavailable, so no Article 14 violation occurred.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as it is devoid of merit in view of lack of budgetary allocation and abolition of the post.

Narottam Lal Mahavar Vs State of Raj and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2014. Narottam Lal Mahavar. VERSUS The State of Raj. & Ors.

¶3

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2014.

¶4

Narottam Lal Mahavar. VERSUS The State of Rajasthan & Others. 10.12.2014.

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA

¶6

Ms.Gayatri Rathore, Counsel for appellant. Mr.P.S.Tomar, Counsel for respondent No.5.

¶7

¶8

Instant appeal is preferred against order of the ld.Single Judge dt.12.03.2014.

¶9

It can be noticed by this court that two separate writ petitions, filed by Narottam Lal Mahavar & Kamal Singh Dhakad, were jointly decided by the ld.Single Judge by a common judgment.

¶10

However, when the matter came up before this court in the intra-court appeal in reference to S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9867/2010, preferred by Narottam Lal Mahavar regarding his discontinuation from post which he held on contract basis, it has come on record that the appellant was appointed vide order dt.09.07.2009 purely on contractual basis under the scheme 'sudh ke liye yudh' to work under the District Food Inspector, Bharatpur for a period of one year and it reveals from the record that as there was no further budget available for the post held by the appellant under the scheme, he was discontinued from service.

¶11

When the writ petition came to be preferred by him, his sole grievance was that for Rahul Jauhari and Kamal Singh Dhakar, who too were appointed along with him under the scheme on contract basis as Ward Boys, sufficient budget was available and there appears no justification to discontinue him from service.

¶12

Since both the writ petitions were finally decided by a

¶13

-2-

¶14

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2014. Narottam Lal Mahavar. VERSUS The State of Raj. & Ors.

¶15

common judgment, the facts relating to the present appellant Narottan Lal Mahavar can be noticed. It is observed that there was no budgetary allocation available for the post held by him under the Scheme after one year and that was the reason for which he was discontinued but as regards Rahul Jauhari, he too was discontinued from service and as regards Kamal Singh Dhakad, he was earlier working as there was budgetary sanction available for the post but at the same as regards present appellant Narottam Lal Mahavar, the post held by him was abolished on account of discontinuation of scheme 'sudh ke liye yudh' and in absence of any budgetary sanction by the Government, obviously such contractual employee could not be allowed to continue. However, for some time, he was allowed to continue under interim orders of the court.

¶16

The main thrust of submission of counsel for appellant is that if other incumbents were appointed after the appellant at later stage on contract basis, at least such substitution of one employee by the other is not permissible under the law and the appellant at least has a right to continue and replacement of employee working on contract basis is not in conformity with the mandate of Art.14 of the Constitution.

¶17

In our considered view, the submission is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that no right is conferred to the employee who is appointed purely on contractual basis and if such appointments are not in conformity with the Art.14 of the Constitution, at least such appointments could not be approved by court of law and as already observed, in absence of any right being conferred,

¶18

-3-

¶19

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2014. Narottam Lal Mahavar. VERSUS The State of Raj. & Ors.

¶20

discontinuation from service on account of non-availability of budget or for any good reasons, the appellant cannot complain this court by filing writ petition and apart from it, the ld.Single Judge has taken note of the fact which came on record that there was no budgetary allocation by the State Government and the post also stood abolished and in these facts & circumstances, he could not be allowed to continue in service and as regards continuation of others is concerned, the ld.Single Judge has recorded a finding that as regards Rahul Jauhari, he was discontinued from service and in the case of Kamal Singh Dhakar, who was earlier working, there was budgetary sanction for the post and if he too has been allowed to continue, the appellant cannot claim parity to him.

¶21

After going through the order of the ld.Single Judge impugned in the instant proceedings, we do not find any apparent error in the order, which requires interference.

¶22

Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(J.K.RANKA),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J.

¶24

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, Sr.P.A.

Narottam Lal Mahavar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narottam Lal Mahavar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Dilawar Vs Shri T Ravikant and Others

Shri Prahalad Bairwa Vs J v v N Ltd.

State of Raj and Anr. Vs Chhotu Lal Surana and

M/S Associated Engineers Vs U O I and Another

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dilip Kumar Lakhani Vs State of Raj and Ors.