High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2010

Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of the respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner on 31.07.1999 is wrong, illegal, unjust, arbitrary and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that the services of the petitioner were required to be regularized as per notification dated 8th July, 1999, issued by the State Government after completion of eight years service. He lastly contended that the petitioner was engaged as Computer Assistant over and above those duties which she was already discharging as Computer Clerk in the respondent-University.

5. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner was engaged in (cid:147)ICIMOD Mountain Women Development Centre(cid:148) and this Project was wound up on

30.07.1999. In these circumstances, the services of the petitioner came to an end on 31.07.1999. He then contended that the petitioner was appointed afresh as Computer Assistant on

12.01.1996 and it has nothing to do with the engagement of the petitioner as a Computer Clerk in the respondent-University. He lastly contended that the petitioner had completed 240 days only in the years, 1994 and 1995.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

7. Petitioner was appointed as a Computer Clerk in the respondent-University and she joined her duties on 09.05.1991. She was appointed as a Computer Assistant in (cid:147)ICIMOD Mountain Women Development Centre(cid:148) 12.01.1996. Her salary was to be charged to (cid:147)ICIMOD Mountain Women Development Centre. Her services could be dispensed with at any time without assigning any reasons. In fact, the appointment of the petitioner vide office order dated 12.01.1996 was a fresh appointment and it has no connection, what-so-ever, with her earlier engagement dated

6.5.1991 as Computer Clerk. She has worked as Computer Clerk w.e.f. 09.05.1991 to 12.01.1996 and thereafter as Computer Assistant till 31st July, 1999. Petitioner has worked for 148 days in 1991, 235 days in 1992, 129 days in 1993, 279 days in 1994, 305 days in 1995 and 9 days in January, 1996. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has not completed 240 days w.e.f. 1991 to 1996, except in two years, i.e., 1994 and 1995, respectively. It is also true that the Coordinator of the Project has taken up the matter with the Registrar of the University for sanction of post as per communications dated 16.11.1999 and 04.12.1999. The Assistant Registrar of the University has informed the Coordinator on 1.1.2000 that the funding agency has not made any provision for the post of Computer Assistant. The petitioner was engaged afresh in two new Projects, as stated hereinabove. She worked in these Projects from 06.01.2007 to 26.03.2008. Since the petitioner had not completed 240 days in eight years, she could not be regularized as per the notification issued by the State Government.

8. The petitioner was appointed in (cid:147)ICIMOD Mountain Women Development Centre(cid:148) as a Computer Clerk. Her salary was to be charged to (cid:147)ICIMOD Mountain Women Development Centre(cid:148). The Project was wound up on 30.07.1999. It is settled law that the services of an incumbent are liable to be terminated the moment Project is wound up. Petitioner had no claim to continue as Computer Assistant after the winding up of the Project on

30.07.1999.

9. Their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Suresh Kumar Verma, AIR 1996 Supreme Court, 1565 have held that moment the Project is wound up, the incumbent has no right to continue. Their Lordships have held as under: (cid:147)3. It is seen that the project in which the respondents were engaged had come to an end and that, therefore, they have necessarily been terminated for want of work. The Court cannot give any directions to re-enage them in any other work or appoint them against existing vacancies. Otherwise, the judicial process would become other mode of recruitment dehors the rules.(cid:148)

10. In Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another versus Director General of Police, Assam and others, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 611, their lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court have held that if temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of persons employed under the project or scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the project or scheme. Their Lordships have further held that if a person has worked continuously on ad hoc basis for one or two decades, it would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts coterminous with the Scheme and not of permanent posts. These persons cannot claim any right to continue in service, nor seek regularization in some other project or service. Their Lordships have held as under: (cid:147)13. The fact that the appellants were employed under the PIF Additional Scheme is not disputed. The duration of PIF Additional Scheme under which they are employed was initially two years, to be reviewed for continuation along with the original PIF Scheme. The said scheme is being extended from time to time and is being continued. If the temporary or ad-hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme end, completion/closure/cessation of the Project or the Scheme.

14. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts co- terminus with the scheme and not of permanent posts.

15. On completion project discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with service, nor seek regularization in some other project or service. (See Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana - 1987 (4) SCC 634, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration - 1992 (4) SCC 99, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., vs. Employees Union - 1995 (3) SCC 474, UP Land Development Corporation vs. Amar Singh - 2003 (5) SCC 388, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad UP v. Anil Kumar Mishra - 2005 (5) SCC 122, Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi - 2006 (4) SCC 31, Indian Council of Medical Research vs. K. Rajyalakshmi - 2007 (2) SCC 332, and Lal Mohammed vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. - 2007 (2) SCC 513). In view of this settled position, the appellants will not be entitled to regularization.(cid:148) In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. May 18, 2010. (bhupender) (Rajiv Sharma) Judge