Dismissed

Ramphool Meena Son of Shri Ramnath Meena v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2024CW/19310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judges dismissed a writ petition filed by contractual employees challenging their non-extension of contracts. The Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's finding that subsequent hires were not replacements and reasons for non-extension were serious and unrebutted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as there is no case made out for interference with the Tribunal's factual findings.

Ramphool Meena Son of Shri Ramnath Meena Vs Union… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12770-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19310/2023

¶4

Ramphool Meena Son Of Shri Ramnath Meena, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Vpo- Nyla Dhani Chhand Walonki, Tehsil-Jamua Ramgarh, District- Jaipur. Holding The Post Of Gardner W.e.f. 01/05/2005.

¶5

Richhpal Singh S/o Peeru Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Indrapura (Dhola Khera), Tehsil-Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.). Holding Post Of Assistant Storeman W.e.f. 01/08/2004.

¶6

Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Babulal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of E-158, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.). Holding Post Of Washerman W.e.f. Jan 1999.

¶7

Hardev Singh S/o Sh. Nimbha Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o V.p.o-Rohina, Tehsil-Jayal, District- Nagaur (Raj.) Holding The Post Of Washerman.

¶8

Rohitash Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Kishore Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vill-Bangadoli, Thanagaji, Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union Of India, Through Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi-110011.

¶12

The General Officer Commanding, 61 Sub Area, C/o 56 A.p.o., Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶13

Nandu Singh, Through The General Officer Commanding, 61 Sub Area, C/o 56 A.p.o., Jaipur (Rajasthan). (In Representative Capacity) Pin Code - 302021

¶14

Phool Singh, Through The General Officer Commanding, 61 Sub Area, C/o 56 A.p.o., Jaipur (Rajasthan). (In Representative Capacity) Pin Code - 302021

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav with Mr. Vishvas Saini For Respondent(s) :

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[2024:RJ-JP:12770-DB]

¶19

[CW-19310/2023]

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶21

Order

¶22

14/03/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset after realizing that the communication dated 07.07.2018 was against the petitioner Nos.2,3 & 4 and the relief claimed by the petitioner Nos.1 & 5 is on different footing, is not pressing this petition qua petitioner Nos.1 & 5 with liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of the surviving grievances.

¶24

The petition qua petitioner Nos.1 & 5 is disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed for.

¶25

This petition is filed aggrieved of the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) dismissing the Original Application (for short ‘O.A.’).

¶26

The brief facts are that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis, their nature of work and initial date of appointment is tabulated below:-

¶27

Name	Nature work	Initial Appointment/ engagement	Years Experience
Richhpal Singh	Asstt. Storeman	01/08/04	14 years
Vinod Kumar	Washerman	Jan 1999	19years
Hardev Singh	Washerman	2005	13years

¶28

Aggrieved of non-extension of the contractual employment, petitioners filed O.A. in 2015. In the reply filed, the respondents annexed the order dated 07.07.2018 wherein, the case of the

¶29

[2024:RJ-JP:12770-DB]

¶30

[CW-19310/2023]

¶31

(3 of 4)

¶32

petitioners was not recommended for extension by the Competent Authority. The O.A. was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh. Fresh O.A. was filed impugning communication dated 07.07.2018. The case set up by the petitioners was that the petitioners have been replaced by the contractual employees and non-extension is illegal. The Tribunal recorded the factual finding that contractual appointments made were not in place of the petitioners as their nature of work was entirely different.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the contractual employees have been replaced by contractual employees and principle of first come last go was not followed. The experience of the petitioners should have been taken into consideration for extension of the contractual employment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the pleadings. The reasons mentioned in the reply filed before Tribunal for not extending contract were serious. Petitioners were found absent during duty hours and were working in private bungalows. There was security threat in Army Cantonment and they had stolen Government stores including official documents. It was pleaded that the petitioners were hired on eleven months agreement. They were neither selected by the Recruitment Board nor issued appointment letters. No advertisement was issued while appointing the petitioners. The plea was that regular recruitment could not be made after 1988 as there is ban on recruitment of Class-IV employees. Further that the contractual employees engaged after removal of the petitioners were not in their replacements and were engaged in Canteen, Holiday Home,

¶34

(4 of 4) [CW-19310/2023]

¶35

[2024:RJ-JP:12770-DB]

¶36

Gas Agencies, Station Head Quarters and Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS).

¶37

The petitioners albeit, filed rejoinder to the reply but were not successful in rebutting the reasons for not extending their contractual employment and also that the subsequent engagements were not in their replacement.

¶38

In view of the un-rebutted factual finding recorded by the Tribunal, no case is made out for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed.

¶39

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶40

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶41

SIMPLE/PAYAL/7

¶42

Whether Reportable: Yes

Ramphool Meena Son of Shri Ramnath Meena v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramphool Meena Son of Shri Ramnath Meena v. Union of India

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

Shri Ashwini Kuamr Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Income Taxandanr

G P Sharma and Ors. Vs U O I and Ors.

Shriram Son of Shri Jayram, Vs Krishan Kant Pathaka Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department

Dr. Dileep Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Pooran Mal Sharma Vs Shri Rajendra Kumar, Director General

Vijaypal S/O Shri Sukhadev Singh Vs Dr. Manisha Aroda

Union of India Vs Rakesh Kumar Dixit Son of Late Shri O.P. Dixit