In W.P.(C) No. 9570/2015-DEL HC- Employees cannot seek permanency or regularization even if they have continued on ad-hoc basis for decades, affirms Delhi HC Justices Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan [18-07-2022]

Read Order: DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, July 19, 2022: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of the ex-employees engaged on contractual basis as System Officer and System Assistant in the subordinate courts with the observation that such contractual employees in the Establishment of District Court cannot claim any right to regularization or absorption by the Establishment of Delhi High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan affirmed, “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.”

The present writ petition revolved around the National Policy and Action Plan for implementation of information and communication technology (ICT) in the Indian Judiciary, which was promulgated by the e-Committee, Supreme Court of India in the year 2005. The creation of the infrastructure involved the appointment of technical and support staff in addition to allied infrastructure such as computers, laptops, printers, scanners and other office infrastructure. The High Court of Delhi invited 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 were co-terminus with the said project. Petitioners, on being successful in their applications, were given temporary employment and were assigned responsibilities of System Officers and System Assistants. The services of the petitioner were finally terminated w.e.f. February 28, 2015 and 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) led to the filing of the present writ petition.

At the outset, the High  Court clarified that the writ petition seeking relief of absorption of petitioners and setting aside a vacancy notice issued by the High Court for appointment of JJA(T) was misconceived. Noticing the fact that the Petitioners joined the services fully aware of the terms and conditions of their employment which was purely on contractual basis for a fixed period, the Bench stated that they were fully aware that the services were liable to be terminated without any notice. Further, the appointment letters mentioned that the officers so appointed will not have any right to claim regular/continuing service as System Officers in the Courts. 

In this case, it was also a matter of fact that Delhi High Court, pursuant to the meeting of the Chairperson of the High Court Computer Committee under the aegis of the e-Committee at Supreme Court, had taken a decision to return the unspent funds released by NIC to the High Court. Pursuant thereto, a sum of Rs. 1,66,167.10 was returned to NIC by the Delhi High Court, thereby leaving nothing to support the salaries of persons temporarily employed such as petitioners.

Also,the Bench considered the fact that 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. 

According to the Bench, the vacancy issued for appointment to the post of JJA(T) had no connection with the petitioners, who were engaged on contractual basis and were deployed in subordinate Courts purely on temporary and contractual basis.Thus, without finding any merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.