RICHA BUDHIRAJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as District Child Protection Officer on contract basis vide appointment letter dtd. 4/4/2012. The contract was extended from time to time as was the contract of other employees appointed under the Haryana Integrated Child Protection Scheme. In February 2019, she proceeded on medical leave from 4/2/2019 till 25/2/2019 and re-joined duty on 26/2/2019. However, she was not given charge of District Child Protection Officer. A number of representations were made by her, but to no avail. Thus, she approached this Court through this writ petition challenging the action of denial of charge of the post of District Child Protection Officer. During the pendency of the writ petition, order dtd. 7/10/2020 (Annexure P-35) was passed, whereby, contract of all other employees was extended except that of the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition was amended for including the challenge to the said letter.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the last appraisal report of the petitioner is for the period 2018-19, in which, she has been graded fit for extension. The said report is upto 31/3/2019. Further, reply dtd. 6/9/2019 received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, shows that there was no public complaint against the petitioner during the period July-2018 to July-2019. Another information was provided in the said reply and that was regarding issuance of warning vide letter dtd. 22/2/2019. It is submitted that explanation was sought from the petitioner vide communication dtd. 13/2/2019 for being absent from a meeting and reply thereto was submitted that she had no knowledge of the said meeting. The explanation was accepted and yet, a warning note was issued. Thus, non-extension of the contract of the petitioner is arbitrary. The scheme is in existence and thus, there is no good ground not to extend the contract of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon judgment dtd. 22/4/2009 passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7922 of 2002 titled as Md. Abdul Kadir and another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others, wherein, it has been held that so long as a scheme is in-force, appointment should continue on ad hoc or temporary basis and the process of termination and re-appointment every now and then should be avoided.

(3.) Learned State counsel submits that a perusal of condition No.2 and condition No.5 of appointment letter shows that an employee was not entitled to any medical leave and that in case of work and conduct was not found satisfactory, the contract could be terminated at any time. By placing reliance upon Annexures R-l to R-15, it has been argued that starting from 15/5/2015, a number of letters seeking explanation from the petitioner had to be issued. A complaint dtd. 22/12/2015, regarding attitude of non-cooperation with seniors was also recevied, a copy of which is on record as Annexure R-6. On three separate occasions, the petitioner was warned/counseled. The last explanation sought was vide letter dtd. 6/5/2019, a copy of which is on record as Annexure R-15. This correspondence shows that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory. The period from 4/2/2019 to 25/2/2019 was treated as unauthorized absence as the petitioner was not entitled to any medical leave. Thus, upon re-joining on 26/2/2019, she was not handed over charge of post of District Child Protection Officer. Finally, when contracts of other employees were extended vide letter dtd. 7/10/2020, the contract of the petitioner was not extended and non-extension of her contract was because of un-satisfactory work and conduct. For the said reason her services could have been terminated earlier, yet, a sympathetic attitude was adopted. The impugned order is legal and valid and deserves to be upheld.