B. Balamallaiah vs The District And Sessions Judge
2021 Latest Caselaw 3182 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                      AND
          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI


                   Writ Petition No.19065 of 2019


ORDER:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



       The petitioner before this Court has filed the

present writ petition claiming continuance in service till

he completes the age of 69 years.


       The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

petitioner, a retired employee, was re-engaged purely on

contractual basis by an order dated 19.03.2018 and the

order which is on record as Ex.P1 makes it very clear

that his appointment on contractual basis will come to

an end after completion of 65 years of age. Not only this,

another condition in the appointment order makes it very

clear that the employer could have terminated him at any

point of time without assigning any reason or without

issuing any notice.


       Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before

this   Court      that     the      petitioner        should         have   been

continued till he completes the age of 69 years, as a

similar benefit has been granted to some persons on

account of a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of
                                 2




this    Court      in   W.P.No.15923      of   2014     entitled

Ch.Ramaswamy and others v. The Chairperson, District

Legal Service Authority - cum - District Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar, decided on 14.07.2016.


       This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid

judgment and in the aforesaid case, persons were

appointed       after   retirement   on   contractual    basis.

However, in the said case there was no upper age limit or

working period indicated in the appointment orders. In

the present case, clause 3 of the appointment order

makes it very clear that the petitioner was appointed on

contractual basis up to the age of 65 years and the

appointment was to come to an end after completion of

his age as 65 years. The appointment of the petitioner

has come to an end after completion of 65 years of age in

terms of the appointment order and therefore, this Court

does not find any reason to direct the respondent to

continue the petitioner beyond the age of 65 years. The

contractual employees are certainly governed by the

terms and conditions of the contract appointment and

therefore, no case for interference is made out in the

matter.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The

miscellaneous applications pending in this writ petition,

if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ P.MADHAVI DEVI, J 02.11.2021 vs