Contractual Workers Engaged Under A Scheme Have No Right To Continue After Its Closure: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person engaged on contract under a government scheme cannot claim a writ of mandamus for continued engagement once the employer has abandoned the scheme. It held that in the absence of any rule, regulation or government order providing for regularisation or absorption, such an engagee has no legal right on which a mandamus can rest.The Court further...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person engaged on contract under a government scheme cannot claim a writ of mandamus for continued engagement once the employer has abandoned the scheme. It held that in the absence of any rule, regulation or government order providing for regularisation or absorption, such an engagee has no legal right on which a mandamus can rest.
The Court further held that an employer's decision whether or not to carry on with a scheme cannot be called in question in court unless the engagee shows arbitrariness or discrimination.
Justice Vikas Budhwar held,
“Once the appointment of the writ petitioners is on contractual basis then the writ petitioners cannot insist that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents to engage the writ petitioners despite the fact that the respondents have abandoned the scheme and they are not implementing the same.”
The petitioners were engaged as Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) during 2012-2013 on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 6,000/-, through selections held by Chief Medical Officers in districts across Uttar Pradesh. The engagements flowed from an office memorandum of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 03.01.2011, which approved engagement of such workers on contract in 235 identified backward districts having a high disease burden, for three years.
The Centre was to fund the scheme on a declining basis of 85%, 75% and 65% over those years, the balance being borne by the State, and the State Government was to create the requisite posts and fill them on a regular basis within the same period from its own resources.
On 26.02.2014, the Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission, UP issued a circular directing that Multi-purpose Health Workers were not to be re-engaged after 31.03.2014. That circular was assailed in various writ petitions.
The Court observed that the appointment orders and the agreements executed by the petitioners themselves showed that the engagement was contractual, terminable on one month's notice, and not against any substantive post.
“…the tenure of the engagement of the writ petitioners in total is approximately 3 years and in absence of any rule, regulation or Government Order providing for regularization or absorption or any status akin to regular, the writ petitioners cannot ask for a mandamus directing the respondents to engage the writ petitioners.”
It observed that the petitioners had not alleged that while they were being displaced, others were simultaneously being taken on contract in their place. It held that since the State's stand was that the scheme was not being run at all, no question of engaging other contractual workers arose.
Turning to whether the closure of the scheme could itself be examined, the Court held,
“…continuance or non-continuance of a scheme by an employer cannot be questioned in the court of law until and unless there is arbitrariness and discrimination being meted to the employee/engagee. However, there is nothing on record to suggest even remotely in that regard.”
On the plea that posts were lying vacant, the Court held that neither the vacancies nor the communications relied upon could found a direction to fill them, that being outside its domain.
“There are various factors which are to be taken into consideration while filling up the post obviously, it includes feasibility, viability etc. Thus, by way of a blanket direction or judicial fiat, this Court cannot issue a direction by way of a mandamus which is contrary to law.”
It further noted that the regular selections under the 2018 Rules had themselves been stayed by a Coordinate Bench on 22.07.2022, and that the relief of continuance beyond 31.03.2014 had already been refused by a Coordinate Bench at Lucknow in Shiv Pratap Maurya and 667 others Vs. State of U.P., decided on 20.03.2024.
“this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for issuance of mandamus as the petitioners are miserably failed to show any legal right in their favour for continuance as Multi-purpose Health Workers.”
Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Case Title: Ankit Pathak And 139 Others v. State Of U.P. And 20 Others