Contractual Employee Not Entitled To Regularization Merely Because He Continued Beyond The Term Of His Appointment : Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that merely because a contractual employee has continued beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular services or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuation.
The Court reiterated that a contractual employee cannot claim regularisation or permanent status as their services are co-terminus with the period of the contract.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed, “It is trite law that contractual employee cannot claim regularization or permanent status and his services are co-terminus with the period of contract. If it is contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end with the term of contract and contractual employee cannot claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his contract/term of appointment. Merely because a contractual employee has continued beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular services or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuation.”
Dy. AG Bramha Datt Singh appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Praveen Verma represented the respondents.
Madhya Pradesh State Government had appointed Data Entry Operators on a contractual basis for a fixed term of two years, as per the directives of the General Administration and Finance Departments.
After the completion of the initial term, the contracts were extended periodically. However, the Commissioner, Planning, Economics, and Statistics Department (Department) issued an order to not extend the contract period beyond anymore, effectively discontinuing the services of 21 Data Entry Operators, including the respondents.
The Single Bench of the High, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution allowed the petition filed by the respondents and quashed the order discontinuing their services and further directed to reinstate them.
The Division Bench noted that there was no material to show that there was any unreasonableness or irrationality in the action taken by the department in issuing the order for not extending the contract period of respondents.
“Undoubtedly, the termination order casts stigma/blemish on the future career prospects of the incumbent by finding him guilty of serious misconduct is required to be passed after following principles of natural justice and a reasonable opportunity should be afforded before criticizing the character of an individual. But since the petitioner was contractual/temporary employee no such opportunity on the question of continuation of contract required to be given,” the Court observed.
The Court stated that contractual appointments work only if they are mutually beneficial to both the contracting parties and not otherwise. “The Court cannot sit in appeal to decide whether a more reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in the circumstances,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “The decision taken by the State Government for not continuing the contract of Data Entry Operators was wrongly considered by the learned writ court as order of termination and therefore, the order passed by the learned writ court cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by learned writ court…deserves to be set aside.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajeev Singh & Ors.
