Employee Not Entitled To Seek Permanency Or Regularisation Of Service If Continued On Ad Hoc Basis For Decades: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an employee will not be entitled to seek permanency or regularization of service even if he has continued on ad hoc basis for decades.

"It is also settled law that even if a Scheme has been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for decades, it would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation," Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed.

The Court was dealing with a plea concerning an advertisement issued by Delhi High Court dated My 25, 2011 inviting applications for filling up the positions of "System Officer" and "System Assistants" to be deployed in subordinate courts.

It was specifically mentioned that the said positions were purely on temporary and contractual basis for a fixed period and were funded by the Government of India, e-Courts mission mode project and are co-terminus with the said project.

The Petitioners were successful in their applications and were given temporary employment and were assigned responsibilities of System Officers and System Assistants.

The appointment letters issued to the petitioners specifically mentioned that the positions were purely on temporary and contractual basis for a fixed period, funded by the Government of India. It also mentioned that the services were liable to be terminated without any notice or assigning any reason thereof, and that the person will not have any right to regular/continuous service as a System Officer.

The services of the petitioner were finally terminated w.e.f. 28.02.2015. The petitioners then gave a representation to the High Court seeking absorption in the regular Cadre of the Court.

The non-consideration of their representation and issuance of a fresh vacancy notice by the High Court of Delhi for appointments to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical) were challenged in the plea.

The Court took note of the counter affidavit filed by the Delhi High Court claiming that there is no fundamental right in those who have been employed temporarily or on contractual or ad hoc basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service.

It also stated that the appointment of the petitioners was made keeping in mind the stop-gap arrangement so as to ensure that the necessary technical assistance continues to be available to Courts.

"The petitioners after having taken advantage of such appointment for a period of three years cannot now claim that their services be regularized disregarding the terms of their appointment," the Court observed.

It added "Even otherwise, the petitioners who were contractual employees in the Establishment of District Court cannot claim any right to regularization or absorption by the Establishment of Delhi High Court as the two are totally independent and separate Establishments."

The Court also observed that the petitioners who had been appointed in the Establishment of District Court and now discontinued cannot claim lien or right of absorption against the vacancies sought to be filled by the Delhi High Court as they were neither appointed nor discontinued by the Establishment Branch of the High Court of Delhi.

"The vacancy notice dated 22.07.2015 issued by Delhi High Court for appointment to the post of JJA(T) in Delhi High Court thus has no connection with the petitioners, who were engaged on contractual basis and were deployed in subordinate Courts purely on temporary and contractual basis," the Court said.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.

Case Title: DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 675

Click Here To Read Order