Suman Mehra vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 8640 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8640 Raj
Judgement Date : 30 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Suman Mehra vs Union Of India on 30 March, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4967/2021

1. Suman Mehra D/o Late Shri Kishan Lal Mehra, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Near Rashtra Doot Press, Hanuman Hatha, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

2. Mamta D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Street No. 6, Old Khunje, Post Hanumangarh, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

3. Manjesh Kumar Kondal S/o Shri Roshan Lal Kondal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Street No. 6, Shiv Nagar, 3-E-Chhoti, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Women And Child Development, Government Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.

2. The Secretary-Cum-Director, Department Of Child Rights, Government Of Rajasthan, 2/198, Kaveri Path, Sector-2, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan Child Protection Society, 22/198, Kaveri Path, Sector-2, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

5. The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

6. The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

(2 of 3) [CW-4967/2021]

30/03/2021

1. Mr. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits

that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely

covered by the judgment dated 25.02.2021, passed by this Court

in the case of Arjun Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

(SBCWP No.2378/2021).

2. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned ASG and Mr. A.K. Gaur,

learned AAG are not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position

of facts and law.

3. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms

of the judgment rendered in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the

relevant portion whereof reads thus:-

"23. Indisputably, period of petitioners' engagement has been extended, as stated by the petitioners by separate orders passed in their favour.

24. This being the position, once the period of contract has been extended, the respondents cannot take plea of expiry of three years' period.

25. The argument of Mr. Gaur, learned AAG, that in light of the terms of the contract the respondents can issue a notice or dispense with their engagement, cannot be countenanced. The State cannot dispense with any contract or concluded rights simply by issuing a notice, unless there is a valid reason so to do. The same can generally be done, if the employee has violated the terms of the contract or misconducted himself. Issuance of notice and dispensing with the services mechanically, without cogent reason subverts the rights of citizens and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

26. Adverting to the order dated 01.02.2021, which is the bone of contention, this Court is of the view that even if the State has taken an in-principle decision to get its obligation under the scheme done on job basis, they cannot disturb already existing position in midway and give a go bye to the mutually entered agreement(s) between the parties.

27. State's action in bringing an abrupt end to petitioners' contractual engagement, which has led to infraction of civil rights, cannot be permitted, in the manner attempted to.

28. The writ petition is, thus, allowed.

(3 of 3) [CW-4967/2021]

29. Impugned order oral or otherwise, including bringing an end to the contract by notice issued before the expiry of the term is, hereby, quashed.

30. Respondents are directed to continue petitioners' engagement for the full term, as mentioned in para No.5 above.

31. On expiry of above referred period, the respondents shall be free to take appropriate decision/action in accordance with law.

32. Needless to observe that the above order will not come in the way of the respondents, if they want to extend petitioners' engagement, to the extent of making it coterminous with other employees."