Contractual employees have very limited rights confined within four corners of their employment contract and Writ Court has limited scope of interference in such matters: P&H HC

Read Order: Anita v. State of Haryana and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 18, 2022: While dealing with the Writ Petition of an Asha Worker, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the contractual employees have very limited rights confined within the four corners of their contract of employment. 

The Bench of Justice Arun Monga further added that there is a very limited scope of interference by the High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, in such matter of contractual employment. 

The above-stated observations were made by the Court while it was approached by the petitioner with a petitioner seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order vide which her services were terminated. 

The petitioner was engaged as Asha Worker on a contractual basis in February 2005 and deputed for duty at Village Nidani, Jind. However, in 2021 her services were summarily terminated by the respondent-department. 

The State counsel strenuously opposed the petition on the ground that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of the fact that she was caught red-handed by the team of P.N.D.T for her involvement in a sex determination test and also for receiving Rupees Eleven Thousand. Therefore, an FIR was registered against her. The counsel also raised an issue with the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner was a contractual employee, therefore the writ was not maintainable. 

Per contra, counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was wrongly implicated in the FIR under Section 420 IPC. 

After having considered the rival submissions, the Court observed that concededly, the petitioner’s services were hired on a contractual basis and being so employed her rights before the Writ Court were very limited. 

Further, the Court observed that even otherwise, considering the disputed claims made by both counsels representing the rival parties, disputed questions of fact arose which could not be adjudicated under the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 

Thus, the petition was dismissed with liberty given to the petitioner to take recourse of appropriate remedy available to her.