Jahan Ara vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

This matter has been listed under the heading "For Orders" and there are some interlocutory applications filed on behalf of the petitioner. During argument, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to the prayer no. (iii) that is why the matter has been heard on merit. He has not pressed the interlocutory applications which are on board.

Petitioner has now confined his prayer for direction upon the respondents for continuing the status of the petitioner as consultant for I.E.C. and evolution as along as Jharkhand Ayushman Bharat or Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojna continues.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed vide letter dated 20.07.2012 as consultant for I.E.C and evolution on contract basis in Jharkhand State Labour Welfare Society after undergoing through the interview conducted by the panel. After being appointed on the aforesaid post, salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month with an increment of 10% was provided to the petitioner. The Jharkhand State Labour Welfare Society is a registered society which has got his registration in the year, 2009. The aforesaid Jharkhand State Labour Welfare Society was later on amalgamated with Jharkhand State Arogya Society under Ministry of Health Medical Education and Public Welfare Department vide letter dated 02.06.2017. The petitioner was provided the service of Nodal Officer for several welfare schemes which is evident from letter dated 03.05.2014 contained in annexure-4. The petitioner was nominated as a member of Child Welfare Committee, Jharkhand vide letter dated 01.07.2010 from the year, 2010 to 2016 for two consecutive terms. The petitioner was nominated as NGO member of District Legal Service Authority vide letter dated 03.01.2007. The Executive Committee held on 20.07.2018 under the chair person of Secretary-cum-president Jharkhand State Arogya Society decided that the post which was created earlier upon which the officers and staffs were working will remain there and their position will not change, rather if any new post is created, they will be absorbed for new post. The said letter is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner is suffering from cancer since 2008. The petitioner discharged her service satisfactorily on every front efficiently . The respondent issued the press notification whereby walk-in- interview for different post on contract basis was invited on 18.09.2019.

Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his prayer submits that by letter dated 06.07.2020, the salary of the petitioner for the period the petitioner worked, has been denied on the ground that the petitioner's service was extended from 01.07.2019 to 31.03.2020 in view of the fact that contract of service has come to an end. He submits that this order has been passed pursuant to order of this Court passed in I.A. He submits that the said society has now merged with Jharkhand State Arogya Society and post of the petitioner is there. In that view of the matter, the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue atleast till the scheme in question is going on. To buttress his argument, he relied on judgment in the case of "Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam & Others". reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611. The relevant para of the said judgment is quoted here-in-below:

On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with such project or scheme cannot claim any right to continue in service, nor seek regularization in some other project or service.

We are, therefore of the view the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminous with the Scheme. The Circular dated 17.03.1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be quashed."

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that order of the Board on record dated 06.07.2020 is also bad in law in view of the fact that order has been passed during the lock-down period in view of pandemic which is against the circular of the Government of India.

Per contra, Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel for the respondent- State submits that the petitioner was appointed as consultant for I.E.C and evolution on contract basis in Jharkhand State Labour Welfare Society on 20.07.2012 and the said society was merged with Jharkhand State Arogya Society which is flagship programme of the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojna being monitored by the Jharkhand State Arogya Society and in order to achieve the objectives of Ayushman Bharat, some contractual posts have been advertised vide Annexure-9 for recruitment and interview for the said post was conducted on 27.09.2019 but the petitioner had not applied for any post and desires to continue on the post on the basis of her earlier contractual appointment. The petitioner avoided even walk-in-interview and has filed this writ petition . By way of stressing on the appointment on contract basis, he submits that the petitioner has no right to continue in project.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the name of Jharkhand State Labour Welfare Society has been changed as Jharkhand State Arogya Society. The said society has invited further application for appointment on contract basis but the petitioner has not applied for whatsoever reason, this is an admitted position as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said post was higher post and the petitioner was working as consultant for IEC and evolution, that is why the petitioner has not applied. It is also an admitted position that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis. The contractual employee has no right to continue in service however, in view of judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner and find out as to whether the experience of the petitioner can be utilized by the society and whether the said prayer is in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the benefit of the same can be extended to the petitioner or not? The respondent no. 2 will pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of six weeks from receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.