H I G H C O U R T O F J A M M U & K A S H M I R A N D L A D A K H HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No: -WP(C) No. 794/2022 c/w WP(C) No. 695/2022 WP(C) No. 779/2022 WP(C) No. 780/2022 WP(C) No. 823/2022 WP(C) No. 848/2022 Shamila Rashid and Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 08.07.2025 (ORAL) 1. The issues involved in the instant petitions are akin and analogous to each other, as such, are being jointly disposed of hereunder:- FACTS 2. The petitioners herein claim to have been engaged by the respondent 3 against various posts advertised through an Advertisement Notice during the outbreak and spread of Covid-19 Pandemic under a Package known as Emergency Covid Response Package (for short, ‘ECRP’) in order to deal with the chaotic situations connected with the pandemic that the selection and engagement of the petitioners was made subject to the various terms and condition set up in their engagement orders, whereupon the petitioners joined Sr. No. 35 2 WP(C) No. 794/2022 c/w WP(C) No. 695/2022 WP(C) No. 779/2022 WP(C) No. 780/2022 WP(C) No. 823/2022 WP(C) No. 848/2022 their respective duties, while stating further that after working for a considerable period of time, as such, some of the petitioners along with the other similarly situated persons when were sought to be disengaged by the respondents, the said petitioners alongwith said similarly situated persons approached the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir with request for extension of their contractual engagement having regard to their dedicated services rendered during the outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic, whereafter the services of the petitioners and said similarly situated persons came to be extended by a further period of three months in terms of order dated 03.10.2021, whereafter the respondents did not extend further the services of the petitioners and, in fact, refused to extend the same after 07.04.2022 on one hand and, on other hand, issued a fresh Advertisement Notice for engagement of Staff Nurses and other paramedical staff on contractual basis for a period of one year and that the respondents taking re-course to such engagements without extending the contractual engagement of the petitioners, overlooking their experiences and expertise in managing the Covid-19 patients and the process, the respondents acted illegally, arbitrarily and discriminated the petitioners and even ignored the earlier assurances extended to the petitioners that their services would be regularized. 3. 3. The petitioner while maintaining the instant petitions have, inter-alia, urged multiple grounds including that the respondents were bound to grant extension to the service of the contractual engagement of the petitioners for another one year on account of their having rendered satisfactory duties while 3 WP(C) No. 794/2022 c/w WP(C) No. 695/2022 WP(C) No. 779/2022 WP(C) No. 780/2022 WP(C) No. 823/2022 WP(C) No. 848/2022 risking their lives and that the respondents could not replace the petitioners’ contractual engagement by another contractual employees by floating fresh Advertisement Notice, which inaction of the respondents is, per-se, illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution, besides having caused serious prejudice to the petitioners affecting their right to livelihood and that ends of justice, equity and fair play demand the respondents to be commanded to grant extension to the contractual engagement of the petitioners and that the petitioners have had no other efficacious remedy available but to maintain the instant petitions. 4. 4. Objections to the petitions have been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is being, inter-alia, stated that with a view to augment the shortage/deficiency of the staff in the hospitals during the Covid period, the services of the different categories of professionals came to be hired on contractual basis temporarily during the years 2020-21 and 2021- 2022 under the ECRP Project to mitigate the problems having arisen out of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic while admitting that appointments came to be on contractual basis in this regard initially for a period of one year and subsequently, pursuant to the directions received from Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the services of such appointees were extended for further period of three months upto 31.12.2021 in terms of order dated 03.10.2021 and that again as per the approval of Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir conveyed by Mission Director of NHRM vide letter dated 07.01.2022, the services of the petitioners 4 WP(C) No. 794/2022 c/w WP(C) No. 695/2022 WP(C) No. 779/2022 WP(C) No. 780/2022 WP(C) No. 823/2022 WP(C) No. 848/2022 were extended by a further three months w.e.f 08.01.2022 vide order dated 08.01.2022, however, it is being specific denied that the petitioners are sought to be replaced by another set of contractual employees while reiterating that the petitioners were engaged/hired only for mitigation of Covid-19 pandemic as per the approval accorded by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and that for the continuation of the petitioners’ services without sanctioning of the requisite financial support from the said Ministry could not be done, as the said Ministry did not sanction any funds beyond 30.09.2021for the purpose. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Having regard to the respective pleadings of the parties besides the submissions of appearing counsels for the parties, the moot question that arises for consideration of this Court would be as to whether the petitioners are in law, entitled to the reliefs sought in the petitions. 6. Before adverting to the aforesaid question, it is significant to note here that it is not in dispute that petitioners came to be engaged by the respondents under Emergency Response and Health System Preparedness Package (ECRP) launched for strengthening Covid -19 management, against a monthly remuneration initially for a period of three months besides subject to various terms and conditions set out there in the engagement orders of the petitioners including the one that the contract of the engagement of petitioners 5 WP(C) No. 794/2022 c/w WP(C) No. 695/2022 WP(C) No. 779/2022 WP(C) No. 780/2022 WP(C) No. 823/2022 WP(C) No. 848/2022 shall not confer any right or any claim for continuation on the basis of the order of engagement if the project is closed/over. Perusal of the record available in the file would also reveal that order No. 93-AHJ of 2021 dated 18.05.2021 placed on record by the petitioner pertaining to the subject of engagement of man power under ECRP also provided as under:- Clause 3 “The selection is purely contractual and the selected candidates shall have no claim for the regularization against the post in GMC and its AHJ. Clause 4 “The selection of the candidates will be purely on the contractual basis. Initially contract for hiring shall be for a period of three months extendable upto to six months and further extension will be subject to the satisfactory performance of the candidates/approval of the post by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India 7. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court qua the status and rights of the contractual appointee. The Apex Court passed in case titled as State of Maharastra others vs. Anita and Anr reported in 2016 (8) SCC 293 has held as under : 15. The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the Government. The appointments of the respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum 6 WP(C) No. 794/2022 c/w WP(C) No. 695/2022 WP(C) No. 779/2022 WP(C) No. 780/2022 WP(C) No. 823/2022 WP(C) No. 848/2022 contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end and the Government initiated fresh process of selection. The conditions of the respondents' engagement are governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted the contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, the respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria”. The Apex Court in case titled as Yogesh Mahajan V/S Professor R. C Deepika reported in 2018 (3) SCC 218 at paras 6 and 7 has held as under:- 6. It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30-6-2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the authorities concerned should consider extending his contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractual basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by the authorities concerned and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner. 7. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3)1 There is nothing on record to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made in accordance with any regular procedure or by following the necessary rules. That being so, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. The decision in Umadevi (3)1 does not advance the case of the petitioner.” 7 WP(C) No. 794/2022 c/w WP(C) No. 695/2022 WP(C) No. 779/2022 WP(C) No. 780/2022 WP(C) No. 823/2022 WP(C) No. 848/2022 8. Reverting back to the case in hand, the petitioners herein indisputably came to be engaged by the respondents on contractual basis in furtherance of a purposes under ECRP launched on account of outbreak of Pandemic Covid-19. 9. Record bears testimony to the fact that the petitioners consciously acknowledged and accepted the nature of their engagements, inasmuch as the terms and conditions laid down and even set out in their respective engagement orders. Since the respondents, in the reply filed to the petition, taken cognizance of in the preceding paras have specifically and in explicit terms averred that they did not receive any financial support beyond 30.09.2021 qua the engagement of the petitioners including other contractual appointees appointed under ECRP from the Govt. of India for Covid-19 Pandemic mitigation, the engagement of the petitioners cannot by any stretch imagination be extended. Thus, in this view of the matter and the position of law referred hereinabove, the respondents cannot, in law, be commanded by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction to extend the contractual appointment of the petitioners on any grounds whatsoever including those urged in the petition and as a consequence of the said conclusion drawn, a writ of certiorari sought by the petitioners as well, is incapable of being granted in the facts and circumstances of the case qua impugned order No. 567/AHJ of 2022 dated 29.03.2022. However, in so far as the prayer of the petitioners made for payment of revised rate of remuneration is concerned, same may be considered by the respondents, if permissible and available in law to the petitioners. 8 WP(C) No. 794/2022 c/w WP(C) No. 695/2022 WP(C) No. 779/2022 WP(C) No. 780/2022 WP(C) No. 823/2022 WP(C) No. 848/2022 10. The instant petitions for the aforesaid reasons except qua the aforesaid prayer for payment of the remuneration, shall stand dismissed. 11. A copy of this judgment and order shall be placed on the record file of each petition. 12. Registry is directed to relist together the petitions being WP(C) No. 102/2022, CCP(S) No. 116/2022, WP(C) No. 220/2022 and WP(C) No. 775/2022 on 18.07.2025. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu 08.07.2025 Javid Iqbal Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes