'No Vested Right To Continue': J&K High Court Denies Relief To Contractual Doctor Seeking Service Extension Post COVID Hospitals Closure
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled against a petition filed by 116 doctors and medical staff who sought to continue their services at temporary Covid hospitals even after they were closed down.Dismissing their plea for seeking an extension of their services Justice MA Chowdhary observed,“The contractual employment has no vested right to continue and it is not open for...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled against a petition filed by 116 doctors and medical staff who sought to continue their services at temporary Covid hospitals even after they were closed down.
Dismissing their plea for seeking an extension of their services Justice MA Chowdhary observed,
“The contractual employment has no vested right to continue and it is not open for the Courts to direct an employer to continue the contract or to change the status of the contractual employment in any manner, once the same has been accepted by consent of both the sides without any demur”.
In 2021, as the Covid-19 pandemic raged across India, the Jammu and Kashmir government established two temporary 500-bed Covid hospitals in collaboration with the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO). To staff these hospitals, 1366 posts were created on a contractual basis for a period of one year, with the possibility of extension depending on need. The petitioners in this case were among those hired under this arrangement.
The petitioners argued that they were promised a three-year term based on clause XII of the government order establishing the hospitals. They also claimed that their services were extended for six months in 2022 due to the ongoing pandemic. They pleaded with the court to direct the government to fulfil the alleged promise of a three-year term and release their Ayushman and Covid incentives. Additionally, they requested that the weightage given to their experience in future recruitment notices be maintained.
Justice Chowdhary, in his judgment, acknowledged the crucial role the petitioners played during the pandemic. However, he emphasized that their appointments were purely contractual and based on the specific need for temporary Covid hospitals.
Citing Yogesh Mahajan Vs. Professor R.C. Deka, 2018 the bench emphasised that in an appointment on contractual or on adhoc basis, without following the regular procedure in terms of the necessary rules, no right accrues in favour of the petitioners for regularization or for continuation of their services.
“The theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be said that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are, or to make them permanent, as the State cannot constitutionally make such a promise”, the bench maintained.
The bench added,
“Once the Government has decided to close down the temporary hospitals, established in view of emergency related to Covid-19 pandemic, where the petitioners were contractually employeed, the respondents cannot be asked to continue their services as contractual employees without any work or their need”.
Regarding the petitioners' plea for incentives, the court directed the government to consider it in light of their services. Additionally, it recommended that the government consider incorporating the weightage given to their experience in future recruitment notices, recognizing their contribution during the pandemic.
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Aabid Rashid Vs Union Territory of Jammu And Kashmir
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 323