HARIOM AND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioners had applied for grant of appointment on the post of Caretaker, Cook and Sweeper respectively and consequent thereupon they were permitted to appear in the selection process and on the basis of their merits, they all were appointed on their respective post for a period of 1 year on contractual basis. The name of the post and the date of appointment of the petitioners has been disclosed in para 5.3 of the petition, according to which the petitioner no.1 was appointed for a period of 1 year on contractual basis on the post of caretaker, whereas the petitioners no. 2 to 6 were appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year on different posts as mentioned in the said para. It is the claim of the petitioners that their contractual appointment for a period of one year has been renewed on yearly basis and they are still working. The petitioners have filed the copies of their appointment order which were either issued in the year 2018, or 2010 or 2017 and all the contractual appointments were for a period of 1 year. It is submitted that although the term of one year from the date of their written contractual appointment has already been over, but under the verbal orders, they are still continuing, and the petitioners expressed their inability to file any written appointment order on contractual basis, from which they can demonstrate that their contractual appointment is still in existence. It appears that without there being any written contractual appointment order, the petitioners have been allowed to continue to work verbally. It is submitted that in the year 2017, the respondents had issued a direction to transfer the services of the petitioner from NRHM to Rogi Kalyan Samiti, which is a Society and the said decision was challenged by filing W.P. No. 5697 of 2017 and this Court by order dated 1-5-2018 directed the respondents to assess the work of the petitioners in the light of policy decision of the Govt. dated 1-4-2015. It is submitted that instead of assessing the work of the petitioners, now the respondents have directed that the support staff shall be employed through outsource agency, which amounts to change in service condition of the petitioners. It is further submitted that since, the petitioners are working for the last several years, therefore, the order of outsourcing cannot be passed as they have acquired the right for their renewal under the policy as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. It is further submitted that a co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 14-11-2019 passed in Sahma Maravi Vs. State of M.P. in W.P. No. 21775 of 2019 (Principal Seat at Jabalpur) has passed an interim order. Hence, this petition has been filed.

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent no.2, that the petitioners are getting the monthly salary of Rs. 5,500/-. Now the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India has directed the respondent no. 2 to employ the staff through outsource agency and accordingly, a budget of Rs. 2520.00 lacs has been sanctioned/approved for support staff, which may be outsourced, to the extent possible. It is further submitted that in the order dated 13-8-2019 (Annexure P/3) it has been specifically provided that preference would be given to that support staff which is already working. It is further submitted that since, all the petitioners were working on contractual basis for a period of one year, therefore, they donot have any substantive right and thus, they cannot claim that by appointing the outsourcing agency, the conditions of services of the petitioners have been changed. So far as the order passed in W.P. No. 5697 of 2017 is concerned, it was based on the concessional statement. It is further submitted that a co- ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 7-12-2016 passed in Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. State of M.P. in W.P. No. 6186 of 2016 (Principal Seat at Jabalpur) has held that the employees appointed on contractual basis have no right. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.