Disposed

Charan Jeet Singh Dhillon v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2018CW/12544/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held that a contractual employee cannot be terminated except for specific reasons, including unsatisfactory service, abolition of the post, or replacement by regularly selected candidates. The court restrained the respondents from discontinuing the petitioner without these grounds.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the petitioner shall not be discontinued from his contractual appointment unless any of the three stated reasons for termination arise.

Charan Jeet Singh Dhillon Vs State and Ors. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12546 / 2016

¶3

Charan Jeet Singh Dhillon S/o Jugdev Singh Dhillon, Age 40 years, R/o Behind Shiv Temple, Subhash Pura, Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Collage Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Collage Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Principal, Maharani Surdarshan Girl Collage, Bikaner.

¶9

Maharani Surdarshan Collage Development Committee through President, Bikaner.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. SK Verma, Mr. Pritam Joshi

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digivjay Singh Jasol

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

14/03/2018

¶16

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the

¶17

following prayer :-

¶18

“1. The impugned communication dated 30.09.2016 directing to invite the Bid from the various placement agency for the post of Security Guard may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶19

2. The impugned Termination order dated 19.10.2016 directing to terminate the services of the petitioner from the post of Security Guard may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶20

3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint petitioner directly not through placement agency as per

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

communication dated 24.08.2002.

¶23

4. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained to assign work of petitioner to private placement agency.

¶24

5. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to continue to pay the salary and dues to the petitioner.

¶25

6. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed not to replace petitioner by another set of contractual employees.

¶26

7. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed not to terminate of the petitioner till regularly selected incumbents available.

¶27

8. If the respondents are in need of additional hand(s) due to emergency, preference of continuance would be given to the petitioner.

¶28

9. In case petitioners’ services are not required on account of availability of regular selected candidates, they may be discontinues subject to the principle of “last come – first Go”

¶29

10. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to adjust the petitioner on the post of Security Guard in any post available on contract basis in society.

¶30

11. Any other appropriate order, which deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶31

This Hon’ble Court granted the following interim order on 25.10.2016 :_

¶32

“It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of Security

¶33

(3 of 4)

¶34

Guard since 2005. However, the respondent College was seeking to replace the petitioner by way of persons to be appointed through placement agency, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mooli Devi Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2010(4) WLC (Raj.) 334.

¶35

Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay petition also, returnable in four weeks.

¶36

Notices when issued be given 'dasti' to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

In the meanwhile and until further orders, operation of the order dated 19.10.2016 (Annex.-9) qua the petitioner shall remain stayed.

¶38

It is further directed that the petitioner shall not be replaced by another daily-wager and/or person engaged on daily- ages through placement agency.”

¶39

Brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioners were appointed as Security Guard on contractual basis in year 2008 and petitioner is in continues service till today.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent refutes the submission on the ground that the petitioner are contractual employee and they have entered contract with an open eyes and thus, cannot seek any kind of continuance. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the absorption regulation or permanent continuance of the contractual employment cannot be claimed as any public employment de-hors the constitution scheme cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶41

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and

¶42

(4 of 4)

¶43

perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that a contractual employees’ services cannot be terminated except for 3 apparent reasons:

¶44

Firstly, the contractual employee is not rendering satisfactory services and therefore, their services are no longer required.

¶45

Secondly, the scheme/plan/project/post is abolished and is

¶46

no more in existence.

¶47

 Thirdly, the petitioners are being replaced by regularly selected candidates for the same post.

¶48

In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall not be discontinued from their contractual appointment unless any of the

¶49

aforesaid reason arise.

¶50

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶51

sudheer

Charan Jeet Singh Dhillon v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Jeet Singh Dhillon v. State and Ors.

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

Chandra Prakash Vs Municipal Board, Balotra and Anr.

Chandra Prakash Vs Municipal Board, Balotra and Anr.

Jagdish Chander Vs State and Anr.

Nol Singh and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Puneeta Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Krishan Gopal Bhati and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.