Hon'ble KHOTHAR1, J. - (1.) THE present petitioners working as Pharmacist/clerks/Computer Operators under the "Mukhya Mantri BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh (MM JRK for short) have approached this Court by way of present writ petitions seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents to continue their services as such till the scheme of BPL MM JRK is continuing and the term of their contract of service for fixed period may be directed to be extended and the termination order, if any, may be quashed and the petitioners have also claimed that the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioners for regularization in service.
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed in the aforesaid position on a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs. 4500/- for the Computer operators and Pharmacist and Rs. 3600/- for clerks by the Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society and their initial appointment for a period of one year in SBCWP No. 6116/2010 - Usha and Ors. vs. State Annex. 3 is dated 2.6.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. P.S. Bhati and Ors. urged that said MM JRK Scheme is an extension of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM for short) which Mission initiated by the Central Government for a period of 2005-2012 was started recognizing the importance of health in the process of economic and social development and improving the quality of life of our citizens, the Government of India resolved to launch the National Rural Health Mission to carry out necessary architectural correction in the basis health care delivery system. It was also stated in the Mission Document of NRHM that Public Health expenditure in India has declined from 1.3% of GDP in 1990 to 0.9% of GDP in 1999. The Union Budgetary allocation for health is 1.3% while the State's Budgetary allocation is 5.5%. The said main document also states that the Union Government contribution to public health expenditure is 15%, while State Contribution is about 85% and therefore, the said NRHM was started to provide effective health care to rural population throughout the country with special focus on 18 States which have weak public health indicators and/or weak infrastructure and these 18 States also include the State of Rajasthan. The learned counsels for the petitioner urged that paucity of funds could not have been a ground to curtail the number of posts of Pharmacists/Computer Operators/Clerks in such Schemes and since need of providing good health care system to the rural folks could not be overemphasized, therefore, the impugned termination of services of the petitioner upon expiry of fixed term contract was illegal and the petitioner deserves to be continued in service as such so that all the Primary Health Centres (PHC) and Satellite Hospital and Sub-Divisional Hospitals in all the districts of the State could have proper personnel and infrastructure to look after the health care of rural population. On the other hand, Ms. Manju Jain, for the NRHM and Mr. Yashpal Khileree for the Medical and Health Department vehemently opposed these writ petitions and contended that the fixed term contract of service of the petitioners having come to an end, there was no legal right of the petitioners to continue in the said service beyond the period of contract and they were so continuing only by virtue of interim orders granted by this Court and they further submitted that the constraint of financial resources made available by the Central Government was the main ground for abolition of the posts and restricting the total number of posts to 886 for financial year 2010-2011 for the aforesaid BPL MM JRK scheme as per the Table given below, which is the main reason as to why the service contracts of the petitioners could not be continued. They emphatically submitted that even without the petitioners, who were appointed on the aforesaid positions of Pharmacists/Computer Operators/Clerks in the said Scheme for a fixed period, all the Primary Health Centres and Sub-Divisional Hospitals in rural areas in the State are working efficiently and the staff already appointed prior to the petitioners under the NRHM Scheme and regular personnel of the Medical and Health Department are rendering their services in all such Primary Health Centres and therefore, the petitioners have no legal right against the abolition of posts by the State Government under the said BPL MM JRK Scheme and cannot be continued as the State Government simply does not have financial resources to pay to such contracted employees. The total of the sanctioned posts for the year 2010-2011 is given in the sanction order dated 28.5.2010 Annex. R/1 produced by the respondents which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: JUDGEMENT_3590_RAJLW4_2010Image1.jpg The learned counsel for the respondents also drew the attention of the Court that as against the financial year 2009-2010, 965 posts were abolished by the State Government for the year 2010-2011 and the details of such 975 posts which were reduced is also given in the Table, which is given below: JUDGEMENT_3590_RAJLW4_2010Image2.jpg JUDGEMENT_3590_RAJLW4_2010Image3.jpg
(3.) THE learned counsels for the respondents also drew the attention of the Court towards the Background Note on the aforesaid BPL MM JRK scheme prepared by Mr. J.P. Meena, the Project Director of the said Scheme on 23.7.2010 and submitted that the Central Government was to made available 70% of the fund required for the said Scheme which was required expenditure for the period 2010-2011 to the tune of Rs. 65 crores and remaining 30% was to be provided by the State Government and thus out of share of the Central Government of Rs. 45.50 crores, the Central Government has made available only Rs. 20 crores vide its letter dtd. 5.5.2010 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. New Delhi addressed to Mission Director, NRHM and the Special Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur that "this is a State initiative and 30:70 cost sharing basis as proposed by the State is not agreed to GOI support is limited to Rs. 20 cr. only." THEy therefore, submitted that on account of limited resources of the State Government and less than expected resources made available by the Central Government, the State Government had no option but to abolish 975 posts as aforesaid and restrict the posts to 886 only for various categories of contracted employees for the said Scheme in the State and therefore, when no such posts were available, there was no question of extending the period of contract of service of the present petitioners. THEy prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. Having heard the learned counsels at length and in view of the documents placed on record and the reply of the respondents and after considering the rival submissions and case laws cited at the Bar, this Court is of the view that the present writ petitions have no force and the same deserves to be dismissed. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, the present petitioners who were appointed as Pharmacists/ Computer operators/Clerks on a fixed term contract and period of contract having now admittedly expired, cannot be said to have any continued or subsisting legal right to continue as such in the aforesaid positions. Merely by efflux of time, their contract of service came to an end and it does not amount to termination, nor any termination order was required to be passed in such cases, and since admittedly, the posts which were created for the financial year 2009-2010 have been reduced by 975 and kept at 886 only in total for financial year 2010-2011 under the aforesaid NRHM Scheme, the petitioners' continued extension of contract of service cannot be directed by this Court. The financial crunch or limitation of budgetary allocation either by the Central Government or by the State Government lies within the domain of the respective Governments and this Court cannot direct the respondent- State to make more budgetary allocation than is available with the respective Governments merely to provide continued employment to the present petitioners. While the object of MM JRK Scheme is laudable, namely, to provide proper infrastructure and proper medical health care to rural folks in Primary Health Centres and Satellite Hospitals, but at the same time, against the abolition of posts, the present petitioners who have worked in the aforesaid positions for a short period cannot insist that their period of contract is bound to be extended any further particularly in view of submissions made on behalf of the respondent- State that the services in such Primary Health Centres or Satellite Hospitals under the said NRHM Scheme which continue to be in force even now, has not suffered any set back on account of service of present petitioners no being continued and their contract of service not being extended or renewed. The respondents have clearly stated before this Court that since the regular employees of the Medical and Health Department and contractee employees of NRHM who were already appointed prior to the present petitioners vide note No. 5 in the sanction order dtd. 28.5.2010 Annex. R/1, the respondents are able to manage the services in such primary health centres and satellite hospitals in rural areas properly, this Court cannot issue any such writ of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners. ;