Madhya Pradesh High Court
Navneet Barde vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2023
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 20604 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. NAVNEET BARDE, S/O RAMESH BARDE, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O
278/2, SUBHASH NAGAR, WARD NO. 01, BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SAPNA WARWARE, W/O BABURAO, AGED ABOUT
38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O DAMUA,
WARD NO. 12, CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUNIL RATHORE, S/O RAJU RATHORE, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O
KOYLARI, POST VIJAY GRAM, BHAINSDEHI,
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. YOGESH RAGHUWANSHI, S/O AMRIT LAL
RAGHUWANSHI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O PATHAKHEDA,
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MANOJ DHAKAD, S/O DASHRATH DHAKAD, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O
POST - SEHRA, SEHRA, BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. NEELIMA BAGHEL, W/O RAVI BAGHEL, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O
132, BEHIND OF SUBSTATION,
CHANDRASHEKHAR WARD - 15, AMAGOHAN,
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. NIKHIL SAHU, S/O ANIL SAHU, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O BODHKHI,
TEHSIL - AMLA, DISTRICT - BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. LILA DONGRE, W/O TULIDAS DONGRE, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O
JAMBADA, TEHSIL - AMLA, DISTRICT - BETUL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 8/24/2023
3:00:38 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI S.K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO.THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR 8, ARERA
HILLS, JAIL ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES THROUGH
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
S E R V I C E 6TH FLOOR, SATPUDA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANSHUMAN SWAMY - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1
AND 3/STATE AND
SHRI YUVRAJ SINGH BAIS - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the issue involved
in the present case has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Dr. Dinendra Kumar Tripathi and others Vs. State of M.P. and
others (Writ Appeal No.847 of 2022, decided on 02.08.2022). It has been
observed therein as under: -
"The initial appointment of the petitioner was in case of emergency
and was contractual in nature. Covid-19 Pandemic continued for
almost two years and looking to the requirement of work of the
petitioners their contractual appointment was extended from time to
time. It is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner was only
contractual in nature as a emergency service. Now the effect of Covid-
19 Pandemic scenario is substantially reduced, therefore, no budget
allotment was made by the Government for the services. As their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 8/24/2023
3:00:38 PM
services are no more required in the Department, the impugned order
was passed.
The law with respect to contractual appointment is settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N.
Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi,
reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kirti
Narayan Prasad reported in (2018) 11 JT 540 wherein it is held that
that a contractual employee is having no right for continuation of
service and cannot even ask for extension of contract period.
From the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is
apparently clear that contractual appointee does not have a right to
a s k for continuation in service. The appellants are not able to
distinguish the judgment passed in the case of Ashta Dubey (supra)
which was subsequently followed in a bunch of petitions main petition
being Writ Petition No.11488 of 2022 (Dr. Dheeraj Rathore and
others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) decided on
28.06.2022. The case is identical to the aforesaid case of Dr. Dheeraj
Rathore (supra). No right accrues to the appellants to ask for
continuation of services.
In view of the settled legal proposition of law, no illegality appears to
be committed by the learned Writ Court.
The writ appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed."
2. In this context, the respondent No.2 have also placed on record the order
dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.1084 of 2022 and the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.11994 of 2022, dated 29.06.2022 (Dr. Bhupendra Singh Yadav
Vs. Union of India and others) and other connected matters and order dated
17.05.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.11096 of 2022 (Ashta Dubey Vs. The
State of M.P. and others).
3. The counsel appearing for the petitioners do not dispute the said
propositions.
4. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed
in the case of Dr. Dinendra Kumar Tripathi (supra).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 8/24/2023
3:00:38 PM
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
taj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 8/24/2023
3:00:38 PM
