Gujarat High Court
Jadav Jitendrasinh Karansinh vs State Of Gujarat - Through Secretary on 26 June, 2024
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/852/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 852 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7620 of 2011
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 853 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7620 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 853 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7620 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
JADAV JITENDRASINH KARANSINH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
LPA No. 852 of 2023
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP J PATEL for the Respondent(s) No. 2
Page 1 of 8
Downloaded on : Mon Jul 01 20:40:15 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/852/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
LPA No.853 of 2023
MR PRADIP J PATEL for the Appellant No.1
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent No.1
MR TR MISHRA for the Respondents No.2-25
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 26/06/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Admit. Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned AGP waives service of
notice of admission for respondent No.1 and Mr. Pradip J Patel,
learned advocate waives service of notice of admission for
respondent No.2 in Letters Patent Appeal No.852 of 2023. In
Letters Patent Appeal No.853 of 2023 Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned
AGP waives service of notice of admission for respondent No.1 and
Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate waives notice of admission for
respondent Nos. 2 to 25.
2. Both the appeals emanate from the oral judgment dated
06.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ
petition. Letters Patent Appeal No.852 of 2023 has been filed by
the original petitioners - employees, wherein the learned Single
Judge has refused to grant backwages, whereas Letters Patent
Appeal No.853 of 2023 has been filed by the employer i.e. Chief
District Health Officer challenging the order of the learned Single
Judge, whereby directions are issued to the State Government to
reinstate the employees.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/852/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
3. At the outset, Mr.Pradip Patel, learned advocate appearing for
the appellant - employer has submitted that the learned Single
Judge has erred in issuing such directions since the judgments on
which the reliance is placed while delivering the judgment will not
apply in the case of the employees. He has submitted that the
employees were appointed for a contractual basis in the year 2009
for 11 months and thereafter, their services were not extended and
were ended on 28.02.2011. He has submitted that the employees
assailed the order before this Court and out of 24 employees, only
09 have pursued the writ petition. It is submitted that during this
period, in fact the appellant - employer undertook regular process
for recruiting the Multipurpose Health Workers in the year 2011,
2014, 2015, 2016 and 2022 and some of the petitioners/employees
participated in such recruitment process but could not be selected.
Thus, it is urged that the issue is squarely covered by the order
dated 23.04.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1292 of 2023. Hence, it is urged that the order and
directions issued by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and
set aside.
4. Per contra, Mr. T.R.Mishra, learned advocate has submitted
that all the employees - original petitioners were appointed for
contractual period of 11 months. However, they are abruptly
discontinued in the year 2011 without any reason. He has
submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgments on
which the reliance is placed by the learned Single Judge, while
giving the ultimate directions of reinstating the employees -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/852/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
original petitioners. He has submitted that however, the learned
Single Judge is in error in denying the backwages. Thus, the
employees were constrained to file the captioned Letters Patent
Appeal No.852 of 2023. It is submitted that the original petitioners
were discontinued without any reason and their contractual period
ought to have been extended further and such an action is illegal
and as held by various judgments of this Court, the employer
cannot resort to replace the contractual employee by other
contractual employees. He has submitted that the first judgment in
this regard was delivered on 25 th July, 2018 passed in Special Civil
Application No.12573 of 2011 and allied matters, which has been
placed reliance by the learned Single Judge. Thus, it is urged that
the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may
not be disturbed to the extent of reinstatement, however,
appropriate directions may be issued to the employer to confer
backwages from the date of termination till the reinstatement, if
any.
5. Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned AGP has also submitted that the
case of the respondents - employees would not be covered by the
various judgments of this Court well as Supreme Court since the
respondents were employed for a fixed period of 11 months on
fixed pay of Rs.2500/- during the year 2009 and thereafter their
contract was not extended and hence, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge directing reinstatement is required to be set
aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/852/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
6. The facts, which are not in dispute and are established from
the pleadings, are that initially there were 24 employees /
petitioners, who preferred the writ petition against their
discontinuance in the employment. It appears that one of the
orders of such employee - Jadav Jitendrasinh Karansinh, which is
issued on 04.012.2009, reflects that he was appointed as
Multipurpose Health Worker on a fixed pay of Rs.2500/- on
contractual basis. They were appointed till 31.03.2010. It appears
that they were thereafter, discontinued on 28.02.2011. Being
aggrieved with such discontinuance, they filed the captioned writ
petition. At the time of hearing the petition, it appears that when
the order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petition
was confined only for 09 petitioners since they were unable to
secure any employment, whereas the other petitioners did not
pursue their writ petition. It appears that thereafter, a Misc. Civil
Application has been filed by two of the original petitioners to
include their name in the writ petitioners since they did not get the
employment. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge by the judgment
dated 06.12.2022 issued in captioned writ petition, has directed the
State Government and the District Panchayat to complete the entire
exercise for conferring the benefits to petitioner including the
benefit of reinstatement within a period of three months. However,
the learned Single Judge has denied the backwages. Being
aggrieved, both the parties have preferred the Letters Patent
Appeals respectively. The learned Single Judge has heavily placed
reliance on the various judgments and orders passed on the issue of
regularisation in the cases of Multipurpose Health Workers.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/852/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
7. The learned Single Judge, more particularly, was convinced
with the fact that the issue is squarely covered by the decision,
which are referred in the said order. Reliance is placed on the
judgement of the learned Single Bench dated 19.10.2022 in Special
Civil Application No.5040 of 2022, wherein Multipurpose Health
Workers, who are appointed by various District Panchayats on ad
hoc basis and were seeking regularisation were ordered to be
regularised and thereafter, they were continued for many years.
8. We have perused the judgment and orders passed by the
learned Single Judge as well as the judgments on which the
reliance is placed.
9. The most distinguishing feature in the present case as well as
the decisions, on which the reliance is placed by the learned Single
Judge, is that the Multipurpose Health Workers (original petitioners)
were appointed on a contractual basis by the order dated
04.12.2009. Their contract was to come to an end on 31.03.2010.
However, they were continued till 28.02.2011. It is also not
disputed by the original petitioners that the respondent authorities
also undertook regular recruitment process for filling up such post
on 05.08.2011, in the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and also in 2022.
Some of the petitioners participated in the recruitment process but
were unable to secure employment as they were not selected.
10. It is well settled legal proposition that a contractual employee
cannot, as a matter of right, claim to be further continued in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/852/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
service on the basis of contract, after the contract period gets over.
At this stage, we may refer to the order dated 23.04.2024 passed
by the co-ordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1292 of 2023,
wherein on a similar issue co-ordinate Bench has set aside the
similar order passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis that
since their appointment of Multipurpose Health Workers initially
was on ad hoc basis and for a very short period, the benefit of
regularisation cannot be given. However in the present case, as
per the observations made by the learned Single Judge, the benefit
of regularisation is not directed. However, the learned Single Judge
has granted continuity of service to the employees - original
petitioners. In the case of Vidyavardhaka Sangha and Anr. vs.
Y.D.Deshpande and Ors. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 482, the
Supreme Court has held that the appointment made on probation /
ad hoc basis for a specific period of time, will come to an end,
after the services of such employees come to an end by the efflux
of time and such employees, who are appointed on ad hoc or
probation basis for a specific period, have no right to continue on
the said post and the terms and conditions are stipulated in the
appointment order, which are accepted by such employees.
11. Similarly in the judgment in the case of Director, Institute of
Management Development, U.P. vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava reported
in AIR 1992 SC 2070, the Supreme Court has held thus:
"23. In the instant case, there is no such rule.
The appointment was purely ad hoc and on a
contractual basis for a limited period. Therefore, by
expiry of the period of six months, the right to remain
in the post comes to an end."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/852/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
12. Thus, it is held that the appointment being purely ad hoc and
contractual for a limited period, by the expiry of period of six
months right to remain in the post comes to an end.
13. In such circumstances and in the light of settled legal
precedent, the learned Single Judge has fallen in error in issuing
the directions of reinstatement of the original petitioners and also
conferring the continuity of service. Hence, the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside.
The writ petition fails. The Letters Patent Appeal No.853 of 2023 is
allowed. The Letters Patent Appeal No.852 of 2023 is rejected.
14. Consequentially, Civil Application (For Stay) also stands
disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V./455
