Dismissed

State and Ors. v. Smt. Savitri Kumari

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2022SAW/241/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed special appeals against a Single Bench order regularizing ANMs appointed on a contractual basis under a specific health scheme. The Court held that project-based appointments terminate with the scheme's closure, rejecting claims for regularization based on long service or legitimate expectation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing regularization was set aside and appeals allowed. No order as to costs.

State and Ors. Vs Smt. Savitri Kumari — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 241/2015

¶4

State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶5

Additional Director Administration, Directorate, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶6

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur.

¶7

Deputy Division Chief Medical Officer, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Smt. Savitri Kumari W/o Shri Sheesh Ram, R/o Primary Health Centre, Bhojasar, Gandhi Nagar Mohan Nagar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

Connected With

¶13

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 226/2015

¶14

State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶15

Additional Director (Administration), Directorate, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶16

The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nagaur.

¶17

----Appellants

¶18

Versus

¶19

Smt. Anil w/o Shri Sumer Singh, R/o Mithi Redu, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.) at present posted as ANM Sub Centre Nathanada, PHC Shri Balaji.

¶20

Rajbala W/o Shri Tara Chand, R/o Village Dokua, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, at present posted as ANM PHC Tantwas.

¶21

Mintu W/o Shri Virendra Singh, R/o Dumrali, Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar.

¶22

Chulki Devi D/o Shri Sharwan Ram, R/o Bhinchari, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar, at present posted as ANM Sub Centre Pitlia Mantra, CMHO Nagaur.

¶23

Meera Ahari D/o Shri Rama Ji W/o Shri Teja Chand Meena, R/o Village Sadakadi, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur, at present

¶24

(2 of 4)

¶25

[SAW-241/2015]

¶26

ANM Sub Centre Deu, CMHO Nagaur.

¶27

Pushpa Purohit D/o Shri Vijay Kumar, R/o Nokha Mandi, Bikaner, at present working as ANM Sub Centre Sathran, PHC Alay, CMHO Nagaur.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 238/2015

¶30

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶31

The Addl. Director Administration, Directorate, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶32

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.

¶33

----Appellants Versus

¶34

Smt. Suman Rani W/o Shri Sukhbir Singh, R/o Village Kishanpura Bas, Post Ramsara Tal, Thesil Rajgarh, District Churu, At Present Working As Anm Posted At Additional Sub Health Centre Nokha Jodha, Post Jachina, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur Raj..

¶35

----Respondent

¶36

For Appellant(s) : ---For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Gaur Mr. R.S. Choudhary

¶37

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶38

Order

¶39

01/12/2022

¶40

This batch of special appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

¶41

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondentspetitioners were appointed on contractual basis as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife (ANM) on consolidated salary of Rs.3,500/- in the Reproductive Child and Health Programme (RCH Programme), run

¶42

(3 of 4)

¶43

[SAW-241/2015]

¶44

by the appellant-department through service providers/NGOs during the years 2003-2006. The services of the respondents were extended from time to time in the said project. The respondentspetitioners by way of filing writ petitions before learned Single Bench prayed that the practice of the appellant-department regarding execution of annual contract with them may be declared bad in the eyes of law further, the appellant-respondents may be directed to regularize their services in the medical and health department keeping in view the services of more than ten years rendered by them.

¶45

Learned Single Bench pleased to accept the writ petitions filed by the respondents-petitioners and held that they shall be allowed to continue on the post of ANMs without insisting upon the execution of fresh annual contracts. Learned Single Bench also held that the respondents-petitioners in view of the long services rendered against the post of ANM deserves to be considered for regularization in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1.

¶46

We have perused the pleadings of the appeals preferred by the appellants and the material available on record.

¶47

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Anr. vs. Director General of Police, Assam & Ors. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 611 , pleased to held that services of an employee appointed on ad-hoc or temporary basis in a project or a specific scheme, would come to an end on completion/closure/cessation of the project or the scheme. It has further been held that mere fact that project or scheme is in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has

¶48

(4 of 4)

¶49

[SAW-241/2015]

¶50

continued on ad-hoc basis for one or more decades would not entitled the employee to seek permanency or regularization.

¶51

Admittedly, the respondents-appellants were appointed by the appellant-department on contractual basis as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife (ANM) under the RCH Programme through the specified service agency/NGO on service contract basis. The respondentspetitioners from the inception of their service were aware that their services are co-terminus with the project/scheme. Mere continuance in project for a period more than ten years would not entitle the respondents-petitioners to seek regularization particularly when they were not engaged against any sanctioned post.

¶52

In the considered opinion of this Court, mere expectation or even legitimate expectation cannot be cause of action for claiming relief of regularization particularly when the appointment is coterminus with the project/scheme. The prayer for regularization thus, made by the respondents-petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶53

The impugned order/judgment dated 20.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge directing appellant-department for regularization of respondents-petitioners services is set aside. In the result, the special appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.

¶54

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶55

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶56

31-32-33-KshamaD/-

State and Ors. v. Smt. Savitri Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State and Ors. v. Smt. Savitri Kumari

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

Dhanna @ Dhanraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Davadi Vs Monika Divadi

Bhagwat Singh @ Bhagwan Singh Vs Khushboo Kanwar @ Manju Kanwar

State and Ors. Vs Smt. Suman Rani

Mangal Das and Ors. Vs B.O.R.and Ors.

Amarchand Vs State of Rajasthan