District- Rewari (Haryana) v. Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence

Judgment

3. Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi (India). Commander 18 Artillery Brigade, Alwar (Rajasthan). Chairman Cum Colonel 343, Field Regiment, Awar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15139/2023 Ashok Kumar Yadav Son Of Shivdayal Yadav, Aged About 39 Years, Vpo- Bhainslana, Tehsil- Kotputali, District- Kotputali- Bahror (Rajasthan)

2. Versus ----Petitioner Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi (India). Commander 18 Artillery Brigade, Alwar (Rajasthan). Chairman Cum Colonel 343, Field Regiment Awar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15719/2023

Anil Kumar Son Of Shri Dayanand Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Nighana, Post Gandala, Tehsil Behror, District Kotputali Bahror (Rajasthan) Naveen Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Near Government Hospital, Ward No. 2, Behror, District Kotputli, Bahror (Rajasthan) Prem Singh Son Of Shri Mishri Lal Hawaldar, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Vpo Machal, Tehsil Behror, District Kotputli, Bahror (Rajasthan) Versus ----Petitioners Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi (India) 18, Brigade Commander, Alwar, (Rajasthan). Chairman 337 Field Regiment, Esm Canteen Organiser, Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16692/2023 Daved Singh Son Of Prithvi Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Vpo Buhana, District-Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). Tehsil-Buhana, Mahendra Singh Son Of Chhitar Mal, Aged About 52 Years, Vpo Shyopur, Tehsil- Mundawar, District - Alwar (Rajasthan). [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (3 of 12) [CW-15608/2023]

3. Naveen Kumar Son Of Dalveer Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Vpo Buhana, Tehsil-Buhana, District- Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). Versus ----Petitioners Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi (India). Commander 18 Artillery Brigade, Alwar (Rajasthan). Chairman Cum Colonel 322, Field Regiment, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17775/2023 Sunil Singh Majila Son Of Dayal Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Vpo Kailash Nagar, Tehsil - Jhotwara, District- Jaipur (Rajasthan). Versus ----Petitioner

3. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi (India). Commander 18 Artillery Brigade, Alwar (Rajasthan). Chairman Cum Colonel 322, Field Regiment, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr.Divyesh Maheshwari with Mr.Yuvraj Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment Reserved on :: 06/03/2025 Pronounced on :: 18/

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and predominantly defined by the challenge raised regarding the replacement of one set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees. Consequently, considering the fact that the [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (4 of 12) [CW-15608/2023] writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15608/2023 titled as Pankaj Yadav and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors, is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not vis-à-vis the questions of law to be determined by this Court; the instant judgment shall be applicable on all the petitions connected herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.

2. The lead petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof, the impugned advertisement dated 25.08.2023 (Annesurex-1) and Subsequent recruitment proceedings carried out in pursuance of the advertisement may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioners may not be removed and allowed to render continuous service on the post of Biller/Canteen Assistant Gde-I till regular appointment on the subject posts.”

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are currently employed as Billing Clerks at the Ex-serviceman Canteen located in Behror, Alwar (Rajasthan), on contractual basis. The date of their initial appointments, as set forth in the petitions, ranges from 2014 to

4. It was further averred that the petitioners' appointments were initially made for a period of 11 months, with the provision for the renewal or review of their contracts upon their written application, allowing for continued service until the age of 60 [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (5 of 12) [CW-15608/2023] years; should the petitioners/contractual employees wish to extend their tenure.

5. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized that various individuals are employed on a contractual basis by the respondents over the years. Nevertheless, satisfaction with their performance has led to the periodic renewal of their (petitioners’) contracts. Notably, the total sanctioned posts for Canteen Assistant Grade-I at the Ex-serviceman Canteen in Behror are limited to eight positions only.

6. Additionally, it was highlighted that the petitioners are aggrieved by an advertisement dated 25th August 2023, published in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’, wherein fresh contractual appointments are being called for, including for positions such as Billing Clerk, Sales Attendant, Helper, etc., at the Ex-serviceman Canteens in Mundawar, Kotputli, and Behror i.e. the place of posting of the petitioners.

7. In light of the aforementioned advertisement, the learned counsel representing the petitioners had expressed concern and apprehension that the services of the petitioners may be prematurely terminated or that they may be replaced by newly appointed contractual employees, thereby jeopardizing their employment. In support of the claim made by the petitioners, learned counsel had placed reliance upon the dictum encapsulated Manish Gupta & Anr. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 540; Ram Sahay Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2015) 3 WLC 748; Narinder Singh Ahuja & Ors. v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health & [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (6 of 12) [CW-15608/2023] Family Welfare & Ors. reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2243 and Hukam Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2018(3) SCT 148.

8. Based on these judicial precedents, learned counsel submitted that contractual employees, once appointed and rendering satisfactory services, cannot be arbitrarily replaced by another set of contractual employees. Moreover, such replacement would be impermissible unless the services of the existing contractual employees are lawfully terminated for valid reasons, in accordance with the applicable legal provisions and terms of the contract. In light of these judgments, the petitioners assert that their continued employment cannot be interrupted without any reasonable cause or a proper process of termination being followed.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the contract of employment entered into with the petitioners is purely of a contractual nature. It was emphasized that the initial term of the petitioners' appointments was limited to a period of 11 months, as per the contractual agreement. The decision to renew the contract, if deemed necessary, rests solely at the discretion of the respondents/offeror, based on its satisfaction with the petitioners’/offerees’ services. Therefore, the employment of the petitioners is contingent upon the respondent’s discretion to renew the contract and is not guaranteed beyond the initial term.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further contended that the issuance of the new advertisement, calling for [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (7 of 12) [CW-15608/2023] contractual appointments, is based on legitimate reasons, including issues related to security, non-performance, and unsatisfactory services. Additionally, it was contended that the decision to issue such an advertisement is a policy decision made by the respondents, as part of their prerogative in managing staffing requirements in a manner that is consistent with the operational needs of the Ex-serviceman Canteen. Nevertheless, this exercise of discretion in policy-making is a prerogative vested in the employer, and the issuance of the advertisement reflects the employer's right to seek fresh contractual employees in line with its objectives.

11. Further, it was submitted that contractual employees, irrespective of their duration of service, do not acquire any vested rights to the continuation of their tenure/service or to the renewal of their contracts. The respondents had argued that the petitioners, despite serving for extended periods, are not entitled to claim any permanent or long-term employment rights, as their appointments are governed by the terms of the contract, which is inherently temporary in nature. In support of the contention noted hereinabove, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the a catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a few of which amongst others were Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine 147 and K.K. Suresh & Anr. vs. Food Corporation of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3905.

12. In light of the above, it was submitted that the present petition(s) should be dismissed, as the legal principles invoked by [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (8 of 12) [CW-15608/2023] the petitioners, based on their reliance on previous judgments, are distinguishable on facts. Nonetheless, the petitioners' employment is based on a contract that does not confer any enforceable right to continued or renewed service. Furthermore, the facts of the case at hand do not align with the factual circumstances of the cases cited by the petitioners, thereby rendering the precedents inapplicable in the present matter.

13. In conclusion, the respondents submit that there is no legal or contractual obligation to renew the petitioners' contracts and that the employer retains full discretion to hire or replace employees based on policy decisions, performance assessments, and other valid considerations.

14. Heard and considered the rival arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the parties, scanned and scrutinized the material available on record and the judgments cited at the Bar.

15. Before embarking upon the process of adjudication, it would be appropriate to delineate the attending factual matrix of the instant batch of petitions. The same is noted herein below:

15.1 That the petitioners herein are rendering service in the respondent-ESM Canteen, Alwar, Rajasthan on contractual basis and their date of initial appointment ranges from 2014 – 2022.

15.2 That it is evident from the submissions that the petitioners are rendering service on a contractual basis, with each contract having duration of 11 months.

15.3 That the renewal of such contracts is contingent upon the discretion of the respondents. It is established that there is no [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (9 of 12) [CW-15608/2023] automatic or vested right to renewal, and the decision to renew lies solely within the respondent’s discretion.

15.4 That the relationship between the parties is not one of employer and employee in the conventional sense. Rather, the bond between the parties is governed by a commercial contract, which outlines the specific terms and conditions of the contractual engagement. Therefore, the legal framework surrounding the petitioners’ employment is distinct from that of regular employees under a permanent employment contract.

15.5 That the respondents have taken the decision of inviting applications for the post(s) in question, grounded in policy considerations, security concerns, and the need to maintain the quality of services at the Ex-serviceman Canteens. As a result, the respondents have issued advertisements inviting fresh applications for contractual appointments, not only for Behror but also for other locations, including Mundawar and Kotputli. This decision is based on a broader policy aimed at improving the operational functioning of the canteens, and is not specific to the petitioners alone.

15.6 That it is undisputed that if the petitioners meet the requisite eligibility criteria, they are free to apply for the new contractual positions. There is no prohibition or debarment preventing them from doing so. This ensures that the petitioners retain the opportunity to continue working with the respondents, subject to the fulfillment of the necessary requirements.

16. Upon consideration of the nitty-gritty of the instant matter and the observation noted hereinabove, it can further be deduced [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (10 of 12) [CW-15608/2023] that the in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar (supra), it is held that a long- standing contractual relationship does not confer a vested right to continue in service or to claim the renewal of the contract. Particularly, when the contract was entered into on temporary basis, such a relationship does not transform into a right to permanent employment or renewal of the contract, as per the terms of the agreement. This judgment reinforces the principle that contractual engagements are based on the agreed terms and do not create any proprietary or enforceable claim for continuation. The relevant extract from the afore stated dictum is reproduced herein below: “4. We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find their continuous working has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed. In the event there was any scheme for such regularization, they could have availed of such scheme but in this case, there seems to be none. We are also apprised that some of the petitioners have applied for appointment through the current recruitment process. The High Court has rejected their claim mainly on the ground that they have no right to seek regularization of their service. We do not think any different view can be taken.”

17. Moreover, the ratio relied upon by the earned counsel appearing for the petitioner i.e. Manish Gupta & Anr. (supra), deals with an unalike factual scenario. In that case, the issue revolved around the appointment of school lecturers who were appointed after a formal selection process. Those lecturers were terminated at the end of each academic year and re-appointed in subsequent years. The facts in that case are therefore distinguishable, as the appointment was made following a [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (11 of 12) [CW-15608/2023] structured and formal selection procedure, and the petitioners therein were re-appointed based on this structured process. The situation in the present case, however, involves temporary contractual appointments, which differ significantly in nature and legal consequences.

18. In the cases of K.K. Suresh & Anr. (supra) and Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the principle that the renewal of a contractual engagement or the hiring of fresh employees cannot be prohibited or stalled. The employer retains the discretion to hire and replace contractual employees as per the operational requirements and policy decisions. Such discretion is not constrained by any previous contractual arrangements unless explicitly stipulated in the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the decision of the respondents to issue a fresh advertisement for new contractual employees is legally permissible.

19. Withal, considering the aforementioned judgments and the principle of Nemo dat quod non habet – No one can give what they do not have, it can be noted that the petitioners cannot claim a right to renewal or continued employment that is not expressly provided for, in their contractual agreement.

20. In light of the above reasoning and legal precedents, it is opined that the present writ petition(s) lack merit and are therefore dismissed. The petitioners’ claim for continued employment or the renewal of their contracts cannot be sustained, as it is not supported by any legal entitlement or vested right. [2025:RJ-JP:10311] (12 of 12) [CW-15608/2023]

21. The stay application and/or any other pending application(s) related to this matter also stand disposed of, in light of the dismissal of the writ petition(s). Preeti Asopa (SAMEER JAIN), J.