- (1.) THE Special Appeal No. 1727/2014 arises out of the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 27.08.2014, by which he has disposed of the writ petition with directions that the writ petitioners have been working and their term has been extended upto 31.03.2015, and thus, they are entitled to be continued in service under two components of the Scheme namely, Rajasthan Urban infrastructure Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'RUIFDCO') and Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Town (for short, 'UIDSSMT') of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (for short, 'JNNURM'), with notional benefits, for the intervening period.
(2.) AFTER hearing Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants -the Principal Secretary, UDH and LSGG -cum -CEO RUIFDO (SLNA) and others, we passed the following interim order on 12.01.2015: "The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 are represented. The notices sent to remaining respondents have not returned back, either served or unserved. Let reply be filed by the served respondents within three weeks. Rejoinder -reply will be filed within a week thereafter. List again on 10.02.2015. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the period of contract of the engagement of the respondents came to an end on 31.03.2014. The projects, under which they were working as poverty alleviation experts, funded by the Central Government, had come to an end on the close of funding on 31.03.2014. In the Rajiv Avas Yojana run by the State Government, the technical cell is only required to supervise the lay out and construction of the houses of the poor. The Basic Services to Urban Poor (BSUP) and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programmes (IHSDP), the components of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), have since been closed, and thus learned Single Judge committed a gross error of law in directing the appellants to allow the respondents to continue till 31.03.2015. Prima facie, we are satisfied that learned Single Judge could not have extended the term of the contract of the respondents, specially after the BSUP and IHSDP components of JNNURM, in which they were engaged under contract only upto 31.03.2014, had come to an end. Until further orders, the effect and operation of the directions given in the judgment dated 27.08.2014 shall remain stayed."
(3.) THE Special Appeal No. 2039/2014, filed by Shri Tarun Meena and 11 others, arises out of the judgment and order dated 28.11.2014, by which learned Single Judge has taken a different view, and has dismissed the writ petition, claiming similar reliefs, on the ground that the petitioners in the writ petition, were appointed on different positions of specialists/experts purely on contract basis as per the agreements in question, and therefore, the terms and conditions contained in the said agreements were binding on both the parties. The agreement, the duration of which was only one year, could be extended by a mutual agreement only, with a month's notice prior to termination. The period of contract, in case of some of the petitioners, had expired in 2012, and in case of some others, was to expire on 30.09.2014. In case of those petitioners, whose term had expired in 2012, it was extended from time to time, and lastly upto 30.09.2014, vide orders dated 30.08.2013. In all the cases, the respondents had decided to extend the period of agreement only upto 30.09.2014, after which they had no right to continue. By an ex parte interim order, they were allowed to continue. Learned Single Judge held that in none of the cases, there was termination of the agreement. The initial period of contract was extended, and that, in case of the petitioners, the term has expired. The petitioners were engaged as Consultant and Specialist purely on contract basis. The State Government has decided to implement the scheme only through the engineers and staff working in the Local Bodies and Urban Improvement Trusts. After the decision taken by the State Government not to extend the term of the agreement, the petitioners had no right to continue.;