Dismissed

Miss.Sunita Acharya v. Raj.Inte.Ginea. Eradi.Project and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2022SAW/420/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed an appeal regarding the regularization of a temporary health educator's services. The court held that contractual service tied to a specific project ends when the project ceases to exist. Consequently, long service did not entitle the appellant to regularization as the project was discontinued, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Regularization of services refused and the special appeal dismissed.

Miss.Sunita Acharya Vs Raj.Inte.Ginea… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 420/2003

¶3

Miss. Sunita Acharya D/o Shri Gopi Lal Ji, by caste Acharya, R/o Pipar House Bagar Chowk, Jodhpur.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Rajasthan Integrated Gineaworm Eradication Project FF-701 Punchasheel Marg, C. Scheme, Jaipur.

¶7

Sanitation Water and Community, Health Project T.R.I. Campus, 25 Alkapuri Ayorved College Chouria, Udaipur. 3. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Panchayat Raj Secretariate, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : None Present

¶10

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

¶11

Judgment

¶12

17/11/2022

¶13

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed as temporary health educator for a period of three months in the pay scale of Rs. 610-1090 at Banswara vide order dated 29.12.1986, issued by the Project Director Integrated Guinea-worm Eradication Project (hereinafter referred to as ‘IGEP’). Pursuant to the order of appointment dated 29.12.1986, appellant joined services on 15.01.1987. While the appellant was working in IGEP, she came to be selected and appointed as Project Director in Women and Child Development Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur on contractual basis w.e.f. 04.11.1992. On 17.11.1992 the appellant, was relieved from IGEP for joining her

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[SAW-420/2003]

¶16

duties as Project Director, District Women Development Authority, Dungarpur. Subsequently, vide an another order dated 21.10.1995, the contractual services of the appellant on the post of Project Director were terminated and she was repatriated to the IGEP. The Director IGEP, vide an office order dated 21.09.1995, appointed appellant as Project Officer, IGEP, Nagaur for a period of three months. The services of the appellant were extended from time to time against the post of Project Officer, IGEP, Nagaur. The Additional Director, IGEP on 10.11.1997 issued an order stating inter alia that the IGEP project shall be discontinued w.e.f. 31.12.1997. Consequently, the services of contractual employees were discontinued.

¶17

The appellant by way of filing writ petition before learned Single Bench prayed that the order dated 10.11.1997 issued by Additional Director, IGEP may be declared illegal and the respondents may be directed to regularize her services on the post of Project Officer.

¶18

We have perused the pleadings of the writ petition preferred before learned Single Bench and the material available on record.

¶19

It is a settled law that if the temporary or contractual engagement/appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad-hoc/ contractual/temporary service of the persons employed under the project or scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the project or scheme.

¶20

We have noticed that appellant from the inception of her services was working as a contractual employee in the respondent department. Mere continuance in IGEP for a period more than ten years would not entitle the appellant to seek regularization

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[SAW-420/2003]

¶23

particularly when the project or scheme under which she was employed is no longer in existence.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the relief of regularization is not admissible to the appellant. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed.

¶25

No order as to costs.

¶26

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶27

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶28

59-KshamaD/-

Miss.Sunita Acharya v. Raj.Inte.Ginea. Eradi.Project and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss.Sunita Acharya v. Raj.Inte.Ginea. Eradi.Project 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

Nand Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemendra Puri Vs the Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur

A.C.T.O.F/S Sirohi Vs M/S Chaurdiya Bros. Balesher

Pappu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Swaroop and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan

Haliya Vs State of Rajasthan