Persons Appointed On "Co-Terminus Basis" Can't Assert Right To Regularization Of Services: Tripura High Court

The observation was laid by Justice T. Amarnath Goud:

"In view of above arguments and also on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appointment of the petitioner itself was on the basis of co-terminus and it is only an engagement order and it has not been given any legitimate rights for regularization, since the said appointments have not been made on regular basis and against the sanctioned posts. The extension of services is also for a limited period specifically, it has been mentioned that the services would come to an end by vacation of the Lokayukta. In view of the same, no rights have been conferred to the petitioners for regularization of their services."

The petition was filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the Constitutional rights of the petitioners, guaranteed under Articles-14, 16, 19, 21, 300A and 311 of the Constitution of India, and their statutory rights, as guaranteed under the Fundamental Rules and regularization of their services thereby, granting regular pay scale and all other ancillary benefits.

The petitioners were aggrieved by an order terminating their engagement as Jamadar and Cook respectively in the residential office of a retired High Court judge serving as the Lokayukta. They argued that after uninterrupted continuance of the said post of such a prolonged period, the petitioners are entitled to continue in the post, even though, their initial appointments were contractual in nature.

Significantly, the Tripura govt had on the same day issued a memorandum appointing them on fixed remuneration on contractual basis. In this light the government counsel argued that the petitioner is not extended for the relief sought as the petitioner is a contractual employee and the services were engaged periodical in terms of tenure of Lokayukta. It was not an appointment order. Further the extension of service order is only in continuation of earlier engagement order.

The court observed that the appointment of the petitioner itself was on the basis of co-terminus and it has not been given any legitimate rights for regularization. Thus, the court found no merit in the petition of the petitioner and dismissed it.