Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Nisha Sharma vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 24 March, 2021
Sr. No. 108
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: WP(C) No. 267 of 2021
Nisha Sharma ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Sh. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate.
v/s
UT of J&K and others .... Respondent(s)
Through: Sh. Raman Sharma, AAG for the
respondent No.1.
Sh. Aseem Sawhney, AAG for the
respondents 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
1. Heard Sh. Ankesh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sh. Raman Sharma, AAG and Sh. Aseem Sawhney, AAG for the respondents
1; and 2 &3 respectively.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated
12.02.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench,
Jammu.
3. The Tribunal by the said order dismissed the TA No.61/37 of 2020
and refused to quash the advertisement notice dated 06.02.2019 issued by the
respondent No.2 whereby two posts of Lady Assistant Zila Sainik Welfare
Officer, one from Jammu and another from Srinagar were advertised and, at the
same time, refused to issue any direction for extending the term of the
petitioner who was appointed on contract basis.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
service conditions of the petitioner provided that her appointment is on
contractual basis for three years but the same is extendable and that the
petitioner can serve for a maximum 12 years or till she attains the age of
superannuation of 60 years.
5. The facts as revealed from the petition show that two posts of lady
Assistant Zila Sainik Welfare officer, one each for Jammu and Srinagar in the
Sainik Welfare Department were created vide Government Order No.
03.04.2007 with the specific mention that the criteria, qualification and service
conditions would be as mentioned in Annexure-A to the order. Annexure-A to
the aforesaid Government Order apart from other things provides for the
service conditions and contains a clear stipulation that the appointment on the
said post would be on contract for three years extendable to a maximum of 12
years or till the attainment of the age of 60 years.
6. The appointment order of the petitioner is Annexure-III to the
petition. It is dated 23.04.2013. It clearly states that the petitioner is appointed
as Lady Assistant against the available vacancy in Zila Sainik Welfare Office
Jammu on contractual basis for a period of three years and that her
appointment is purely on contractual basis which is liable to be terminated even
earlier if she becomes medically unfit and unable to perform her duties; if her
work and conduct is found unsatisfactory and if there is deterioration in his/her
personal discipline.
7. The service conditions as well as terms and conditions of the
appointment of the petitioner which are not in dispute. It is abundantly clear
from the appointment letter of the petitioner that her appointment was purely
on contractual basis for a period of three years w.e.f. the date of appointment
i.e. 23.04.2013.
8. The service conditions simply indicate that the aforesaid contractual
appointment is extendable but it is not mandatory that it should be extended for
a maximum of 12 years or till the petitioner attains the age of 60 years.
9. It is well settled that a contractual appointment comes to an end as
soon as the period of the contract expires. The contractual appointee has no
right to the post or to continue on the post unless the authorities decide to
extend the term or to reappoint him. In the present case, after the petitioner
had completed a contractual period of three years, her services were extended
for another period of three years on contractual basis. Even the said contract
period expired. The petitioner thus ceased to be a contractual employee.
10. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner challenged the
advertisement dated 06.02.2019 whereby the respondents advertised the above
post for fresh contractual appointment for a period of three years. The Central
Administrative Tribunal in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
dismissed the petition of the petitioner on the ground that the appointment of
the petitioner was only for a fixed period of three years on contract basis and
since the same or even the extended period has expired by efflux of time she
has no right to continue on the post or to claim that she should be allowed to
function at least till she completes 12 years of service or attains the age of 60 as
mentioned in the conditions of service.
11. We find no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal inasmuch
as the conditions of the service relied upon by the petitioner are not mandatory
in nature, more particularly when the appointment of the petitioner was
contractual. The service conditions do not provide that the services of a
contractual employee in all cases is liable to be extended or that it is mandatory
to extend the service for a period of 12 years or till the candidate attains the age
of 60 years. No law has been shown to us which provides that a contractual
employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee after the term of
the contract has expired. Moreover on the expiry of the contract period if the
post is advertised afresh, it is always open for the earlier contractual employee
to apply which protects the right of the petitioner for seeking fresh
appointment.
12. It is important to point out that the aforesaid two posts of Lady
Assistant Zila Sainik Welfare Officer were created with the sole object to give
benefit to the widow of armed forces personnel/wife of ex-servicemen/wife of
a serving armed forces personnel as is clear from one of the criteria laid down
for appointments on the said post. The service conditions also provide that
preference shall be given to ex-service women, widow of armed forces
personnel, wife of ex-servicemen and wife of a serving armed forces personnel.
Since the aforesaid creation of posts is in social interest to mitigate the
hardship of the above category of ladies, it is necessary that opportunity to
maximum number of ladies belonging to the said categories is given so that
most of such ladies get the advantage and it may not remain confined to one
person. The petitioner having already worked on contract basis for six years
must yield place for the new incumbent and if the respondents have initiated
steps for appointment of a new person in her place on contractual basis, it is
just and reasonable and in consonance with the objective of the above scheme.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in
the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with connected
applications.
(SINDHU SHARMA) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
24.03.2021
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
RAJ KUMAR
2021.03.25 13:36
