The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Aadesh Kumar & Ors. vs Sh. Amit Singla & Anr. consisting of Justice Jyoti Singh while ordering the payment of dues to the Ad Hoc Auxiliary Midwives, opined that by serving as ANMs, Petitioners have contributed greatly to society during COVID-19.
Facts
The petitioners were appointed in response to an advertisement during the COVID-19 pandemic, when professionals were needed to manage Delhi's COVID-19 centres. The advertisement stated the roles were short-term/ad hoc until 31.07.2021, extendable as needed. The offer of appointment reaffirmed that the petitioners were engaged on a short-term/ad hoc basis for Rs.40,000/month. The time of engagement was extendable only if IDHS, SWD needed it.
Procedural History
On 9.06.2022, Respondent No. 2 halted the hiring of 48 Vaccinators for North District vide order. This petition was submitted in anticipation of Petitioners' service termination. This court ordered that the petitioners' service conditions not be modified until the next hearing. The interim ruling was founded on an earlier interim order from the Vacation Bench on 06.06.2022.
Respondents filed an application to vacate the interim decision, arguing that the Petitioners had no vested right to be appointed as ANMs or to claim an extension of their term because the terms and circumstances of their employment made it obvious that the appointment was short term/ad hoc.
Observations of the Court
The bench noted that once the Respondents stated categorically that the CVCs had closed because the need for vaccinations in schools and educational institutions had decreased and the professionals hired during COVID-19 had become surplus, this Court could not issue a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to extend the petitioners' service or direct their continuation. Further, it could not overlook the fact that the interim order in this petition was granted in favour of the Petitioners on 29.06.2022, based on an interim order dated 06.06.2022, passed in another writ petition, as aforementioned, which has since been disposed of, vacating the interim order.
At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioners urged that they be paid for the time they worked, albeit under an interim court order. Respondents resisted granting the emoluments, by contending that some petitioners had taken alternative employment during that time. It was opined that:
“Petitioners have contributed to a large extent to the society in the most testing and unprecedented times of COVID-19 and it would be travesty of justice if they were deprived of their emoluments for the period they served the Respondents and the society.”
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the Petitioners, save and except, Petitioner No. 1 shall be paid their salaries, emoluments and/or any other dues which were payable to them in terms of the offer of appointment and as per law, which was to be released by the Respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of judgment.
Since Petitioner No. 1's employment period with the Respondents was disputed, he was allowed to make a submission to them together with documentation referring to his alternate employment in the relevant period, if any. Respondents could verify the documents, and if Petitioner No. 1 had worked for them during the interim order's duration, he would be paid his proportionate wage and other emoluments. Writ petition along with the pending applications was disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
Case: Aadesh Kumar & Ors. vs Sh. Amit Singla & Anr.
Citation: CONT.CAS(C) 873/2022
Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh
Decided on: 9th December 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
