Allahabad High Court
Brajesh Kumar Pathak vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3523 of 2021
Petitioner :- Brajesh Kumar Pathak
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner, working as Technical Assistant on contractual basis, is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 12.2.2021 passed by Chief Development Officer/ Additional District Programme Coordinator (MANREGA) Basti by which his services have been terminated.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in view of the ratio decided in the judgment dated 23.2.2021 passed in Writ-A No.37760 of 2017 (Shaijad Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment dated 23.2.2021 is quoted as under:-
".........The above judgment of the Division Bench has been followed in Writ Petition No. 26247 of 2018, wherein this Court has clearly observed that the appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak is not an appointment to any post nor any status is conferred on the basis of such appointment and the appointment otherwise is purely in the nature of contract of personal service, which cannot be enforced. The only remedy available would be to seek damages.
In the facts of the present case also the appointment is being sought on the post of Rojgar Sewak. The engagement as Rojgar Sewak is purely a contractual appointment, which is regulated by the Government Order dated 23.11.2007. The Government Order clearly provides that such appointment is for a period of one year and can continue for a maximum term of two years. Paragraph 7 of the Government Order dated 23.11.2007 provides that the decision of the Gram Panchayat would be final in case any dispute regarding contract arises. The Gram Panchayat, however, is not arrayed as a party in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 642 of 2010, in which the Government Order dated 23.11.2007 was assailed. An interim order directing status quo to continue in respect of such appointees is relied upon. This interim protection will not confer any right upon the petitioner, as termination order passed against them was challenged therein, whereas no appointment order is issued to the petitioner in the facts of the present case. The other judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Shiv Manorath Shukla and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 56644 of 2010 is in respect of Panchayat Mitra and not Gram Rojgar Sewak.
Since the appointment claimed in this case is contractual in nature and the petitioner otherwise has not been issued any formal letter of appointment, no writ would lie for issuing an appointment letter to the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.3.2021
SP/
