The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Desh Deepak Srivastava & Ors. vs Delhi High Court & Anr.consisting of Justices Amit Mahajan and Vibhu Bakhru reiterated that even if any scheme has been in operation for some decades or the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for decades, it would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation.
Facts
The petitioners were appointed as System Officers and System Assistants on purely temporary and contractual basis for a fixed period for utilization of their services in District Courts. On completion of the contractual period their services were terminated by issuing termination letter by the Delhi High Court. The petitioners then gave a representation to the High Court seeking absorption in the regular Cadre of the Court.The non-consideration of their representation and issuance of a fresh vacancy notice by the High Court for appointments to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical) (“JJA(T)”) led to filing of the present writ petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: Similarly placed employees who were given contractual employment under the same policy in various states have been absorbed by the High Courts after framing necessary rules. National Policy and Action Plan for implementation of ICT in Indian Judiciary, as prepared by the e-Committee of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, also contemplates absorbing the technical manpower engaged during the establishment of e-Courts in the regular Cadre. The petitioners have completed their tenure and diligently fulfilled the duties assigned to them.
Respondent: The appointment was purely on temporary and contractual basis for a fixed period.They do not have any Constitutional/ Statutory/ vested or legal right, which can be enforced against Respondent No. 1 by filing a writ petition.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that Petitioners joined the services fully aware of the terms and conditions of their employment which was purely on temporary and contractual basis for a fixed period. They were fully aware that the services were liable to be terminated without any notice and/or assigning any reason thereof. Further, the appointment letters mentioned that the officers so appointed will not have any right to claim regular/continuing service as System Officers in the Courts.
Judgment
The Bench observed that even if any scheme has been in operation for some decades or the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for decades, it would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation. Hence, finding no merit in this petition, the same was dismissed.
Case:Desh Deepak Srivastava & Ors. vs Delhi High Court & Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 9570/2015
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru
Decided on: 18th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :