State And Ors vs Smt. Savitri Kumari
2022 Latest Caselaw 14084 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 241/2015

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Additional Director Administration, Directorate, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur.

4. Deputy Division Chief Medical Officer, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus Smt. Savitri Kumari W/o Shri Sheesh Ram, R/o Primary Health Centre, Bhojasar, Gandhi Nagar Mohan Nagar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

----Respondent Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 226/2015

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Additional Director (Administration), Directorate, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Smt. Anil w/o Shri Sumer Singh, R/o Mithi Redu, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.) at present posted as ANM Sub Centre Nathanada, PHC Shri Balaji.

2. Rajbala W/o Shri Tara Chand, R/o Village Dokua, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, at present posted as ANM PHC Tantwas.

3. Mintu W/o Shri Virendra Singh, R/o Dumrali, Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar.

4. Chulki Devi D/o Shri Sharwan Ram, R/o Bhinchari, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar, at present posted as ANM Sub Centre Pitlia Mantra, CMHO Nagaur.

5. Meera Ahari D/o Shri Rama Ji W/o Shri Teja Chand Meena, R/o Village Sadakadi, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur, at present

(2 of 4) [SAW-241/2015]

ANM Sub Centre Deu, CMHO Nagaur.

6. Pushpa Purohit D/o Shri Vijay Kumar, R/o Nokha Mandi, Bikaner, at present working as ANM Sub Centre Sathran, PHC Alay, CMHO Nagaur.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 238/2015

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Addl. Director Administration, Directorate, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Smt. Suman Rani W/o Shri Sukhbir Singh, R/o Village Kishanpura Bas, Post Ramsara Tal, Thesil Rajgarh, District Churu, At Present Working As Anm Posted At Additional Sub Health Centre Nokha Jodha, Post Jachina, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur Raj..

                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :    ----
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. S.S. Gaur
                                  Mr. R.S. Choudhary



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                       Order

01/12/2022

This batch of special appeals are being disposed of by this

common order.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents-

petitioners were appointed on contractual basis as Auxiliary

Nursing Midwife (ANM) on consolidated salary of Rs.3,500/- in the

Reproductive Child and Health Programme (RCH Programme), run

(3 of 4) [SAW-241/2015]

by the appellant-department through service providers/NGOs

during the years 2003-2006. The services of the respondents were

extended from time to time in the said project. The respondents-

petitioners by way of filing writ petitions before learned Single

Bench prayed that the practice of the appellant-department

regarding execution of annual contract with them may be declared

bad in the eyes of law further, the appellant-respondents may be

directed to regularize their services in the medical and health

department keeping in view the services of more than ten years

rendered by them.

Learned Single Bench pleased to accept the writ petitions

filed by the respondents-petitioners and held that they shall be

allowed to continue on the post of ANMs without insisting upon the

execution of fresh annual contracts. Learned Single Bench also

held that the respondents-petitioners in view of the long services

rendered against the post of ANM deserves to be considered for

regularization in terms of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in

2006 (4) SCC 1.

We have perused the pleadings of the appeals preferred by

the appellants and the material available on record.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir

and Anr. vs. Director General of Police, Assam & Ors.

reported in 2009 (6) SCC 611, pleased to held that services of

an employee appointed on ad-hoc or temporary basis in a project

or a specific scheme, would come to an end on

completion/closure/cessation of the project or the scheme. It has

further been held that mere fact that project or scheme is in

operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has

(4 of 4) [SAW-241/2015]

continued on ad-hoc basis for one or more decades would not

entitled the employee to seek permanency or regularization.

Admittedly, the respondents-appellants were appointed by

the appellant-department on contractual basis as Auxiliary Nursing

Midwife (ANM) under the RCH Programme through the specified

service agency/NGO on service contract basis. The respondents-

petitioners from the inception of their service were aware that

their services are co-terminus with the project/scheme. Mere

continuance in project for a period more than ten years would not

entitle the respondents-petitioners to seek regularization

particularly when they were not engaged against any sanctioned

post.

In the considered opinion of this Court, mere expectation or

even legitimate expectation cannot be cause of action for claiming

relief of regularization particularly when the appointment is co-

terminus with the project/scheme. The prayer for regularization

thus, made by the respondents-petitioners is not sustainable in

the eyes of law.

The impugned order/judgment dated 20.03.2014 passed by

the learned Single Judge directing appellant-department for

regularization of respondents-petitioners services is set aside.

In the result, the special appeals are allowed.

No order as to costs.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 31-32-33-KshamaD/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)