Prince Kumar Sinha & 289 others …. … v. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Ministry Rural Development
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1164 of 2021 Prince Kumar Sinha & 289 others …. …. Petitioners 3. 1. 2. 4. 5. Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Ministry Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Ranchi. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj & NREP (Special Division Department), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Directorate of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Giridih. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ranchi. 10. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. 11. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive 8. 9. 6. 7. Officer, Zila Parishad, Pakur. 12. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. 13. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dumka. 14. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. 15. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Koderma 16. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. 17. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jamtara. 18. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. 19. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Deoghar 20. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum. 21. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, West Singhbhum. 22. Union of India through the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, New Delhi. …. …. Respondents WITH W.P.(S) No. 2892 of 2021 Shambhu Mahato & Ors. …. …. Petitioners 1. 2. 3. Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Ministry Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Ranchi. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj & NREP (Special Division Department), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Directorate of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 1 4. 5. 6. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Searaikela. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dumka. …. …. Respondents WITH W.P.(S) No. 3542 of 2021 Abhijeet Bera & Ors. …. …. Petitioners 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Ministry Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Ranchi. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj & NREP (Special Division Department), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Directorate of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, East Singhbhum. …. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4676 of 2016 and thereafter, the matter went before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 4 Nilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & ors., in L.P.A. No. 618 of 2018. The Division Bench after hearing the parties has been
Arguments
------ : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shrestha Gautam, Advocate Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Ms. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG For the Resp. Nos. 18 & 19 : Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 20 & 21 : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate ----- 14/ 18.06.2024 All these writ petitions contain same and similar issue and hence, with the consent of parties, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. 3. Heard the parties. Feeling aggrieved by the notification contained in Memo No. 395 dated 19.02.2021, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions, by which they are being replaced by another set of employees. 4. The brief facts of each writ petitions are that under the aegis of 14th Finance Commission launched by the Government of India, the Government of Jharkhand in its Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), sanctioned various posts of Accounts Clerk-cum 2 Computer Operator, Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers. By notification contained in Memo No. 80 dated 28.4.2016, the State Government laid down the requisite qualifications for appointment and examination process as well as service conditions. Thereafter, the concerned Deputy Commissioners of the district issued a press release on 30.5.2016 inviting applications for the posts of Junior Engineers / Accounts Clerk-cum-Computer Operator. Similar advertisements for appointment on various posts were also published by other districts of the State. Being eligible in all respects, the petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Junior Engineers / Accounts Clerk-cum Computer Operators. All the petitioners were called for efficiency test and computer test and after being found successful in all the tests, they were appointed on the post of Junior Engineers / Accounts Clerk-cum-Computer Operators. Thereafter, all the petitioners were posted in different blocks and were discharging their duties with full satisfaction of the authorities. It is specific case of the petitioners that though they were appointed under the 14th Finance Commission for a period of five years, which was supposed to come to an end on 31.03.2020, but their services were extended till 31.12.2020 with assurance that they shall further be continued. However, the State Government vide notification dated 19.2.2021 initiated fresh selection process on the posts against which the petitioners are continuing on contractual basis for implementation, monitoring and execution of the works related to scheme under 15th Finance Commission on same set of eligibility criterion. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to knock the door of this Court with utmost apprehension that their services might be discontinued. 5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shrestha Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in replacing one set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees is not permissible in the eyes of law. He submits that contractual / adhoc employees should only be replaced by regular appointment, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238. He further relies upon the judgments in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 3 118, wherein replacing of adhoc employees by another set of adhoc employees is deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. To strengthen his arguments, learned senior counsel also places reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Ritesh Ranjan & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand, decided in W.P.(S) No. 861 of 2011, as well as the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Narinder Singh Ahuja & Ors. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 1741 of 2014] to contend that until the regular appointment has been made, no adhoc appointment can be replaced by another adhoc appointments. In support of his contentions, learned counsel also places reliance upon the judgment in the case of Alok Burman & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 3496 as well as in the case of Babita Kumari & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., decided in W.P.(S) No. 4692 of 2021. Relying on these judgments, learned senior counsel submits that the impugned notification is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were appointed under the 14th Finance Scheme for a specified period and the same will depend upon the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment. He submits that when the period of 14th Finance Commission expired, the employees engaged under the said Scheme have got no right to claim for continuity in service. It is contended that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and not on adhoc basis and there is much difference in between them. Learned counsel also points out that as per guidelines of 15th Finance Commission, the employees working prior to initiation of 15th Finance Commission either on regular basis or on contractual basis were not be paid honorarium from the fund of 15th Finance Commission. Hence, the petitioners’ case for continuation in service even after coming into force of 15th Finance Commission is not sustainable. 7. Learned counsel further points out that similar matter fell for
Decision
pleased to hold that the writ petitioners being the appointees of 13th Finance Commission cannot claim continuation in their services even in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission. Learned counsel further submits that exactly the same and similar matter fell for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4064 of 2021, wherein the writ petitioners, who were appointed under the scheme of 14th Finance Commission, raised claim for continuation even after operation of 15th Finance Commission. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding therein that the claim of the petitioners being the ad hoc employees are being replaced by another set of adhoc employees is misplaced. Learned counsel submits that the present matters are squarely covered by the judgments passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4064 of 2021, as also the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 618 of 2018 and hence, no interference is warranted in all these writ petitions. 8. I have heard the respective counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. There is a no quarrel to the legal propositions that one set of adhoc employees may not be replaced by another set of adhoc employees and it can be replaced only by appointment on regular basis, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments including in the cases of Piara Singh (supra), Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) etc. However, the fact remains to be decided in the present matters is as to whether the appointment of the petitioners is on adhoc basis or on contractual basis. For this purpose, the service conditions of the petitioners is to be looked into, which may perhaps be mentioned in the appointment letters of these petitioners. The service conditions mentioned in the appointment letters are quoted herein above in Hindi verbatim:- (i) izkajfHkd pj.k esa lafonk ds vk/kkj ij ,slh fu;qfDr ,d o ds fy, dh tk jgh gS rFkk bl dkykof/k ds iw.kZ gksus ds iwoZ ftyk Lrjh; p;u lfefr ds }kjk muds dk;ksZa dh leh{kk dh tk;sxhA dk;Z larks’kizn ik;s tkus ij vxys ,d o ds fy, lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk uohdj.k fd;k tk ldsxkA uohdj.k ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa ,slh fu;qfDr Lor% lekIr le>h tk;sxhA fu;qfDr ds fy, xfBr dh xbZ p;u lfefr gh bl iz;kstukFkZ uohdj.k ds fy, lfefr ekuh tk;sxhA (ii) xx xx xx. 5 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. xx. (iii) xx (iv) xx (v) xx (vi) xx (vii) xx (viii) xx (ix) fu;qDr dfeZ;ksa dks foHkkx }kjk rS;kj fd;s x;s vuqca/k i= ij gLrk{kj djuk gksxk ,oa fu;qDr dfeZ;ksa ds lHkh izek.k i=ksa ;Fkk&’kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk izek.k i=] tkfr izek.k i=] vkoklh; izek.k i= bR;kfn dk lR;kiu lacaf/kr cksMZ@ fo’o fo?kky; @ foHkkx ls lacaf/kr iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh ds Lrj ls vufok;Z :I ls djkuk gksxkA 9. From perusal of the service conditions of the petitioners, it is as clear as day that they were appointed on contractual basis for a specified period under the Scheme of 14th Finance Commission. The appointments on adhoc basis and contractual basis are different to each other. Although temporary, ad-hoc & contractual appointments are used in contradiction to a regular & permanent appointment but between ad-hoc appointment & contract appointment, distinction is there in service jurisprudence & both the expressions cannot be used interchangeably. 10. The adhoc appointment is that in which eligible candidates are engaged for a specifically created post or purpose, or for a solution to immediate problems or to serve immediate needs. These appointments are made when the management is not in a position to fill such vacancies, permanently became of certain complications or due to non-fulfillment of the required formalities within time or when the need of the hour is for speedy functioning and disposal of the situation. 11. On the other hand, the contractual appointment is that which is made on temporary basis against a post for a specific or short period by recruiting in the persons from outside, if rules of the Organization permit such appointment, or on local basis out of the candidates of subordinate services to fill up the vacancies. 12. The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, including the judgment in the case of Piare Singh (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case, because Piare Singh was employed on adhoc basis, whereas in the present case, the petitioners were engaged for a specified period and as per bi-lateral agreement, their services came to an end after expiry of the tenure of the 14th Finance Commission. 6 13. Moreso, the same and similar matter fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 618 of 2018, wherein it has been held that “appointment made on contract basis under a Scheme depends upon the terms and conditions of the contract which will amounts to a bi-lateral contract and if any condition about the tenure has been given, the same binds the parties and there cannot be any deviation from the terms and conditions of the contract and furthermore the party would have no legal vested right to insist upon the other party to change the terms and conditions of the contract.” 14. After that, exactly the same and identical issue challenging the same notification contained in Memo No. 395 dated 19.02.2021 fell for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4064 of 2021, wherein the Court finding no infirmity in the impugned notification dated 19.02.2021, dismissed the writ petition. The following findings were returned by the Coordinate Bench:- “16. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the nature of the petitioners’ engagement has to be termed as “contractual” that too for the purpose of execution of the schemes under the 14th Finance Commission. Hence, the petitioners’ claim that they being the ad hoc employees are being replaced by another set of ad hoc employees is misconceived. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh (supra) has also no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned notification as contained in memo no. 395 dated 19.02.2021 issued by the Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand.” 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, as also in view of the fact that the similar matter has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 618 of 2018, as also by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4064 of 2021, I have no hesitation to dismiss all these writ petitions. 16. Hence, all writ petitions stand dismissed. The pending interlocutory application stands closed. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 7