The petitioner, a garage sweeper awarded a contract from 2008 to 2010, filed a writ petition for extension of his contract period. The court held that the relationship was contractual, ending automatically upon expiry, and allowed no right to extension.
Petitioner to continue only till the contract expiry; no direction to extend the contract period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.25204 of 2010
Date : 28-12-2010
Between : C.Subba Rayudu .. Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC Kurnool, Kurnool District and others .. Respondents
Counsel for petitioner : Sri G.Venkateswarlu Counsel for respondents : None
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the request of the petitioner for extension of contract period by one more year from 2011-2010 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to extend the period of contract.
I have heard Sri G.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. No counter affidavit either, has been filed. The petitioner was awarded the contract for sweeping and cleaning of garage of Nandyal Depot from 22-11-2008 to 21-11-2010. When notice dated 28-12-2009 was issued by the respondents proposing to terminate the contract, the same was questioned in W.P.No.5993/2010. This court, by order dated 30-3-2010 allowed the said Writ Petition directing the petitioner to continue till the end of the contract period. The petitioner has executed a fresh undertaking on 30-4-2010 for payment of minimum wages and accordingly he was continued till the expiry of the contract period. The petitioner averred that he made a representation on 17-8-2010 requesting the Regional Manager to extend his contract period by one more year. As the said request has not been accepted, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he can claim extension of the contract period as a matter of right. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondents is contractual in nature.
With the expiry of the period of contract, the relationship automatically comes to an end. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to insist that his contract period shall be extended by the respondents. The petitioner failed to plead and substantiate that he has a legally enforceable right for issuance of a mandamus. Therefore, the Writ Petition which falls in public law field, cannot be maintained.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.32209/2010 is disposed of as infructuous.
____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J
Date : 28-12-2010 AM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a contractual employee has a right to claim an extension of the contract period as a matter of right.
Whether a writ petition seeking a declaration that the refusal to extend a contract is illegal and arbitrary is maintainable in public law.
Whether a legally enforceable right exists for issuance of a mandamus to extend a contractual period.
C.Subba Rayudu
The Regional Manager, APSRTC Kurnool
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
