Delhi High Court
Sanjay Rawat & Ors. vs Registrar General, Delhi High ... on 21 September, 2016
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment dated 21st September, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 8373/2016
SANJAY RAWAT & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms.Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Tinu Bajwa and Mr. Sameer
Sharma, Advocates
versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Ms. Pratishtha Vij
and Mr. Rhishabh Jetely, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. The four petitioners were appointed on co-terminus basis. Upon the
retirement of concerned Judges, the services of the petitioners stand
terminated. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the
attention of this Court to the offer letter dated 05.08.2011 to show that
the petitioners were initially to work on probation for a period of two
years, which period was extendable by one year. The learned Senior
Counsel submits that the petitioners were under the impression that
their services would be made permanent. The learned Senior Counsel
has also placed strong reliance on the guidelines dated 07.02.2008 of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India with regard to co-terminus
employees.
2. Mr. Ghose, who enters appearance on behalf of the respondent on an
W.P.(C).8373/2016 Page 1 of 5
advance copy, submits that the Office Order of different dates of
different employees placed on record would show that it was
abundantly made clear to the petitioners that they have been appointed
on co-terminus basis upto the tenure of the concerned Judge. Sample
office order dated 08.08.2011 is reproduced as under:
"Hon‟ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to make the
following appointment on the Establishment of this Court:-
S.No. Name of the candidate Post to which Remarks
appointed
1. Mr.Sandeep Kumar, S/o Temporary With effect From
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Court Attendant 06.08.2011(A/N)
in the pay band on co-terminus
of Rs.5200- basis with the
20200 plus tenure of Hon‟ble
Grade pay of Mr. Justice G.P.
Rs.2000. Mittal against a
vacant post of
Court Attendant.
3. Mr. Ghose has also relied upon two judgments in the case of The Chief
Executive Officer, Pondicherry Khadi and village Industries Board
and Anr. v. K. Aroquia Radja and Ors., reported at JT 2013(4) SC 137
and State of Gujarat and Another v. P.J. Kampavat and Others.,
reported at JT 1992(Suppl) SC 102 in support of his submission that the
services of co-terminus employee would stand terminated with the
tenure of the concerned person at whose instance he was employed.
Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the judgment in the case of The Chief
Executive Officer, Pondicherry Khadi and village Industries Board
and Anr.(supra) read as under:
"14. The principle contention of the appellants is that as seen
from the above narration of facts, the engagement of the
respondents was clearly on a co-terminus basis. There was no
assurance to them that they will be continuing in service after the
W.P.(C).8373/2016 Page 2 of 5
tenure of the Chairman of the Board was over. There are
recruitment rules and a procedure by which the employees under
the Board are to be engaged. It was submitted on behalf of the
appellant that any departure therefrom would mean allowing a
back door entry in Government Establishment/Quasi
Government employment 1 Page 15 which would be violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As against this
submission of the appellant, it was pointed out by the
respondents that in their case there has been an approval by the
Board and then by the Lt. Governor. That being so, there was no
reason to interfere into the orders passed by the Divis ion Bench
as well as by the Single Judge in the two matters before us
directing implementation.
.....
19. In another judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat and Anr.
Vs. P.J. Kampavat and Ors. reported in 1992 (3) SCC 226, this
Court had occasion to look into a similar situation. That was a
case where persons concerned were appointed directly in the
office of the Chief Minister on purely temporary basis for a
limited period up to the tenure of the Chief Minister. This Court
held that such an appointment was purely a contractual one, and
it was coterminus with that of the Chief Minister‟s tenure, and
such service came to an end simultaneously with the end of
tenure of the Chief Minister. No separate order of 1 Page 20
termination or even a notice was necessary for putting an end to
such a service.
4. Paragraphs 8 and 12 of the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat
and Another(supra) read as under:
" 8. It is evident from a reading of the order of appointment of the
writ petitioners that it was purely a contractual appointment co-
terminus with the tenure of the Minister‟s establishment, at whose
choice and instance they were appointed. The order expressly stated
that they shall not get any right to appointment in regular cadre. Their
services were, it was expressly stated, liable to be terminated at any
time without giving any notice and/or without assigning any reasons.
Indeed, they were asked to furnish under-takings in the above terms
which they did. The order no doubt employs the words "appointed as
direct recruits on purely temporary basis"-and these are the words
which constitute the sheet-anchor of the writ petitioners‟ contention.
We are, however, of the opinion that the order must be read as a whole
and so read, it is clear that the appointment of the respondents/writ
petitioners was made otherwise than in accordance with the rules, at the
choice and on the recommendation of the concerned Minister who
wanted them to serve in his establishment. That the State has the power
to make such contractual appointment is recognised by clause (2) of
Article 310. clauses (1) and (2) of Article 310 read as follows:
"310. Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State:-(1)
Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is
a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union of an
all-India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil
post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the President,
and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds
any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the
Governor of the State.
(2) Notwithstanding that a person holding a civil post under the Union
or a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or, as the
case may be, of the Governor of the State, any contract under which a
person, not being a member of a defence service or of an all-India
service or of a civil service of the Union or a State, is appointed under
this Constitution to hold such a post may, if the President or the
Governor, as the case may be, deems it necessary in order to secure the
services of a person having special qualifications, provided for the
payment to him of compensation, if before the expiration of an agreed
period that post is abolished or he is, for reasons not connected with
any misconduct on his part, required to vacate the post.
.....
12.For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the
appointment of the respondents was a pure and simple contractual
appointment and that such appointment does not attract and is
outside the purview of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. Since
the tenure of the ministers at whose instance and on whose
recommendation they were appointed has come to an end with
10.12.1989 their service also came to an end simultaneously. No
order of termination as such was necessary for putting an end to their
service, much less a prior notice. They ought to go out in the manner
they have come in."
5. Mr. Ghose also submits that a similar writ petition also on the identical
ground being W.P. (C)No.9777/2015 titled „Pooja Kumari v. Delhi
High Court and Anr.', was also dismissed as withdrawn by an order
dated 17.02.2016.
6. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners wishes to
withdraw the petition to enable the petitioners to make a representation
while placing reliance on the guidelines of the Supreme Court and also
on the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.08.2009.
7. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
pst
