What Punjab & Haryana HC ruled on extension of tenure in Contractual Appointment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in case of a contractual appointment of a person by the State Government, the tenure of employment shall be governed by the terms of the said contract..The Rules and Regulations governing appointment of government employees would not apply to such contractual appointments..Hence, the Court cannot ask the Government to extend the agreement, especially, when the project for which the person was employed stands completed..The judgement was passed by Justice Jaswant Singh in a writ petition preferred by a person appointed as Project Manager (Environment) on contractual basis by the Punjab Roads and Bridges Development Board..The Petitioner had sought a direction to be issued to the State Government to extend his services in the light of instructions dated August 28, 2017, through which the Punjab Government directed its departments to extend the services of employees who are already working on contract, till March 31, 2018..The said instruction was passed under the Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Out Sourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016..As per the appointment letter dated March 26, 2012, the petitioner’s appointment was on contractual basis, for a period of one year which may be extended. After several extensions, the tenure of petitioner was finally extended up to December 31, 2017 or till his services are required whichever is earlier..It was the Petitioner’s case that non-extension of his employment of the contract as per the August 28, 2017 instruction amounted to violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India..The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument on the ground that there can be no parity in view of Articles 14 and 16 as it was not a case of substitution by some other employee when the project was still incomplete.“Had petitioner pleaded that he is going to be substituted by another employee, this Court might have gone into the question of legality of appointment of another person but in the absence of appointment of another person, this Court can not ask the respondent to avail services of the petitioner because it may increase unnecessary burden over the Board- Respondent.”.As a result, the Court held that,.“This Court finds that present petition is bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed. The conceded position as emerge from arguments and record of the case is that petitioner was appointed through agreement dated 16.04.2012 means his appointment is governed by said agreement and not Rules and Regulations governing appointment of government employees.”.The Court, nonetheless, ruled that the petitioner would be entitled to salary and all other benefits till the date he had worked..The Petitioner was represented by advocate Ravi Kamal Gupta..The State of Punjab was represented by Additional Advocate General, Manoj Bajaj while advocate Vikas Chatrath appeared for Punjab Roads and Bridges Development Board..Read judgement below: