Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 11: Stating that contractual employment doesn’t give rise to a vested right to continue, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the petition filed by contractual employees engaged for a specific period to address health crisis caused by COVID-19 pandemic.
Through the petition, the petitioners, who were engaged for running temporary COVID hospitals at Jammu and Srinagar, had challenged the endorsement dated 19.04.2023 issued by Secretary to the Government, Health and Medical Education Department and Principal, Government Medical College Jammu whereby their services were disengaged.
After hearing Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed along with Advocate Sheikh Najeeb for the petitioners and Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma for the respondents, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “the principle that contractual employment doesn’t give rise to a vested right to continue is grounded in the understanding that once a contract of employment has been mutually agreed upon by both the parties, without any objection and reservation, is not within the jurisdiction of the court to compel the employer to maintain the contract or alter the terms or status of the employment in any manner”.
“While a worker may have the right to challenge the termination if it is in violation of statutory protections but there is no automatic right to employment continuation simply because the individual was employed under a contract”, High Court said, adding “in case of contractual employment, the employee’s right to continue employment is based solely on the terms and conditions of the contract. Further, the contractual employment doesn’t create a right to permanent employment unless explicitly stated in the contract or by law”.
Pointing towards judgments of the Supreme Court, Justice Nargal said, “this court is of the view that the appointment of the petitioners was solely on contractual basis specifically made in response to the urgent needs arising from COVID-19 pandemic”, adding “initially, the petitioners were hired on contractual basis for a specific period with an extension of an additional six months granted to ensure continuity of service during the critical phase of the pandemic. However, as the situation improved the temporary COVID hospitals were closed and services of contractual staff were discontinued”.
While dismissing the petition, High Court said, “the petitioners have no unfettered right to continuance being contractual employees engaged for a specific period. As a necessary corollary, challenge thrown to impugned endorsement also fails being devoid of any merit”. However, the High Court directed the respondents to release the wages of the petitioners for the period they have worked and if there is no other legal impediment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
