Deputy Secretary, Forest Environment And Climate Change vs Chandreshwar Prasad Sharma

D.N. Patel, A.C.J.

I.A. No. 5239 of 2017

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 286 days in preferring this

Letters Patent Appeal.

Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for

condonation of delay.

We therefore, condone the delay of 286 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

I.A. No. 5239 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 560 of 2016

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order

delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) no.3762 of 2015 dated 6th January, 2016 whereby the petition preferred by respondent no.1 was allowed

by the learned Single Judge and hence the State of Jharkhand has preferred this present Letters Patent Appeal.Â

The prayer in the petition was that one ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another. Original petitioner was appointed as data entry operator on

contractual basis and his services were extended for a further contractual period and the State Government terminated the services of the original

petitioner to be replaced by another ad hoc employee and hence the petition was preferred by the original petitioner which was allowed by learned

Single Judge and hence, the State of Jharkhand has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. Â

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that respondent no.1 was

appointed as Data Entry Operator on 9th January, 2008 for the period of five months on contractual basis.Â

It further appears from the fact of the case that from 2008 several times, for several years, the services of respondent no.1 was extended and

lastly, on 29th July, 2015 three months extension was given with a condition that the services of respondent no.1 (original petitioner) is to be continued

for a further period of three months or till the availability of Computer Operators through Jharkhand Agency for Promotion of Information

Technology.Â

Thus, as per this appellant if Jharkhand Agency for Promotion of Information Technology is providing other Data Entry Operators, they will be

engaged on contractual basis instead of original petitioner. This is not permissible mainly for the reason that one ad hoc employee cannot be replaced

by another. One ad hoc employee can be replaced only by a regularly appointed employee. Even otherwise also, Data Entry Operator who is

respondent no.1 was in the services from 9th January, 2008, his services has been extended for years together and his services is sought to be

replaced by another Data Entry Operator on contractual basis, without any cogent and convincing reasons.Â

There are no allegations against respondent no.1 about his inefficiency or any other type of misconduct.Â

In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Piara Singh and Others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 in paragraph no.46 the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

 “46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by

a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.â€​     (Emphasis supplied)

12.   In view of the aforesaid decision, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing W.P. (S) no. 3762 of 2015, vide

judgment and order dated 6th January, 2016.

When the Data Entry Operator has got experience and when he is ready to work on contractual basis with some lump-sum remuneration, they

ought to have been continued by this appellant-State unless, regularly recruited employee is given the services. Thus, ad hoc employee has a right to

continue and they cannot be replaced by another ad hoc type of employee.Â

It has been observed by learned Single Judge while disposing of writ petition being W.P.(S) no. 3762 of 2015 in paragraph no.6 as under:-

“The respondent department would consider the cases of such petitioners who have been thrown out by virtue of impugned decision for re-

engagement subject to availability of vacant posts in the respondent department concerned within a period of 4 weeks from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear the engagement of these personnel being contractual in nature, it would be

governed by its terms and conditions. It would also be open for the respondents to undertake recruitment to such post in a regular manner as per any

policy decision of the respondent State taken in that regard.â€​       (Emphasis supplied)

In view of the aforesaid observations, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in permitting this appellant-State to employ an

employee on regular basis if they want to replace the original petitioner otherwise, the original petitioner will continue on contractual basis. 16. With

these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed as we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.(S) no. 3762 of 2015, vide judgment and order dated 6th January, 2016.

17. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. no.6304 of 2017 also stands dismissed.

 Â