ORDER N.G. Nandi, J.
1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for direction to the respondent not to terminate the services of the petitioners from the post of Tr. Telephone Operators/Complaint Receiver till regular selection is made to the posts: for further direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners for regularisation on the post after giving due weightage of their past services and for grant of attached benefit of service in the matter of pay and allowances on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
2. The say of the petitioners is that the petitioners are working as Tr. Telephone Operators/Complaint Receiver in Delhi Vidyut Board on the consolidated salary of Rs. 2500/- per month; that the petitioners were appointed when they applied in response to an advertisement for the post which required the candidates to possess registration with Employment Exchange in Delhi; that before appointment, the petitioners were subjected to an interview and were selected on the basis of their performance in the interview and their merit and experience; that the petitioners were appointed in May, 1998 which was for six months; However, their services were not continued and terminated on 15th November, 1998, evidently because the respondent has adopted a policy that an incumbent adhoc/contract/daily wager shall not be continued for mere than six months in a year; that the respondent thereafter initiated appointment of 80 such persons on daily wage basis under the nomenclature of Complaint Clerk; that again in May, 1999, petitioners were appointed on the posts of Tr. Telephone Operator/Complaint Receiver; that the term of appointment contained a clause that the appointment will came to an end in the month of September, 1999; that large number of posts of Tr. Telephone Operator/Complaint Receiver are lying vacant and till then, the petitioners be continued to hold the posts till such regularization/absorption on the vacant posts; that there are 100 posts of Tr. Telephone Operator/Complaint Receiver lying vacant.
3. It is submitted by Mr. S.K. Sinha learned counsel for the petitioners that though regular vacancies are lying vacant/available, the respondent resorted to their appointment by way of contract basis mala fide for a fixed duration of six months; that the work done by the petitioners is of regular and perennial nature; that the appointment for a fixed duration of six months is a camouflage and that the petitioners be permitted to hold the posts till the posts of Tr. Telephone Operators/Complaint Receiver are available by way of regular appointment.
4. It is submitted by Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for respondent that the petitioners are appointed on fixed duration basis and that their appointment would come to an end by efflux of time on completion of six months and the petitioners have no right to continue on the posts after the appointment for fixed duration comes to an end.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are admittedly appointed on contract basis for a period of six months w.e.f. May, 1999 and the same has come to an end on 30th September, 1999.
6. In the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar , the Supreme Court, while considering, the question of regularisation of daily wage workers held that "the daily wage appointment will obviously be in' relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists.
Under these circumstances, the Division Bench was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then. The direction in this backdrop of the above facts is, obviously, illegal." As pointed out above, the argument by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners be continued even beyond the contract period until the posts in question are filled up by way of regular employment. In view of the principle laid down in the case of State of U.P. & Others Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), the argument on this count cannot be accepted.
7. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma & Anr. , the Bench comprising three Judges of the Supreme Court held that "the appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to Rules. The project in which the respondents were engaged having come to an end and that, therefore, they have necessarily been terminated for want of work, the Court cannot give any directions to re-engage them in any other work or appoint them against existing vacancies." Disagreeing with the contention by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was an admission in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court that there were vacancies and that, therefore, the respondents are entitled to be continued in service, the Supreme Court further observed "The vacancies require to be filed up in accordance with the rules and all the candidates who would otherwise eligible are entitled to apply for when recruitment is made and seek consideration of their claims on merit according to the Rules for direct recruitment along with all the eligible candidates. The appointment on daily wages cannot be a conduit pipe for regular appointments which would be a back-door entry, detrimental to the efficiency of service and would breed seeds of nepotism and corruption....."
8. In the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava , while considering the question of regularisation of the appointment purely adhoc and contractual for a limited period, it has been held that "in case of appointment purely ad hoc and contractual for a limited period, the right to remain in the post comes to an end after the expiry of the period. Direction of the High Court reinstating the respondent and regularising her services set aside". The principle laid down in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava (supra) will be applicable with all force to the present case for the reason that the question before the Supreme Court was of regularisation of the services where the appointment was purely adhoc and contractual for a limited period.
As pointed out above, in the instant case also, the appointment of the petitioners is purely ad hoc and contractual for a period of six months and the contract has admittedly ended by efflux of time. When the right to continue on any post is purely contractual for a fixed period, such a right would come to an end on expiry of such period.
9. In view of the above referred decisions by the Supreme Court, the petitioners cannot claim right to remain on the posts beyond the contract period and the right to remain on posts comes to an end on expiry of the contract period.
In the result, the writ petition would be liable to be dismissed with the only direction to the respondent not to appoint any fresh contract worker on fixed duration basis/daily wage basis/ad hoc basis, for the posts in question and as and when such regular posts are available which are to be filled on regular basis, the services of the petitioners shall be considered in accordance with rules.
10. Order accordingly.