IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 25185 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ GOPAKUMAR P,LAB ASSISTANT IN THE POLYCLINIC OF THE ECHS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT SREEBHAVAN,PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE EX-SERVICE CONTRIBUTORY HEALTH SCHEME (ECHS),ADJUTANAT GENERAL BRANCH, ARMY HEAD QUARTERS,MAUDE LINES, DELHI CANTONMENT 110 010. RERPRESENTED BY STATION COMMANDER THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. THE STATION COMMANDER, ECHS, STATION HEAD QUARTERS, PANGODU, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.THOMAS KUTTY, LIEUTENANT CORNEL, OIC ECHS STATION HEAD QUARTERS, PANDODE, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF DEFENSE NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R1,2,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25185 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 04.11.2004. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 22.09.2006. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 23.09.2011. EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 24.09.2010. EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT. EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.09.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. ( TRUE COPY ) PA TO JUDGE. Kvs/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.25185 of 2011-W. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman. Pursuant to the Ex-Service Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS for short) introduced by the Central Government, the petitioner was employed on contract basis as a Laboratory Assistant in the Polyclinic at Thiruvananthapuram. Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4 are the successive agreements extending over periods of 12 months each, executed between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The term of Ext.P4, the last agreement, is to expire on 24.9.2011. As per Ext.P6, the 3rd respondent has intimated the petitioner that no further extension is granted to the petitioner. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 as being arbitrary and illegal. 2. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is not in good terms with any of the male members of the hospital including the petitioner for the reason that they WP(C).No.25185/2011-W. 2 were instrumental in exposing some illegal activities of the said respondent. The 3rd respondent has therefore decided to terminate the petitioner on extraneous consideration. According to the petitioner, he had got an offer for employment abroad as evidenced by Ext.P5 which opportunity he had forgone, in the hope that he would be able to continue in the present post until he attained the age of superannuation. It is the further contention of the petitioner that his termination is not on one of the grounds that are mentioned in clause 11 of the agreements evidenced herein by Exts.P1 to P4. Therefore, he seeks issuance of appropriate directions to quash Ext.P6. 3. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General. He submitted that the petitioner's appointment was purely on contractual basis as explicitly stated in Exts.P1 to P4 agreements. He had, therefore, entered service with the full knowledge that his term was only upto the termination of the period of agreement and that any further continuance WP(C).No.25185/2011-W. 3 would depend on the decision of the authority to execute a fresh agreement engaging him. Persons who are appointed on contractual basis are to be discharged from service on termination of the agreement and cannot be absorbed into regular service, it is contended. Since the petitioner has no right to continue in service, it is pointed out that he is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Admittedly the petitioner has joined service and has continued to work in accordance with the stipulations contained in Exts.P1 to P4 agreements. It is made clear in the agreements that the appointment of the petitioner is purely on contractual basis for providing comprehensive medical care to Ex-servicemen, pensioners and their authorised dependents and at the Polyclinic at Thiruvananthapuram. True, clause 11 enumerates the grounds on the basis of which the agreement could be terminated even before the expiry of its termination. WP(C).No.25185/2011-W. 4 However, this is not a case of termination of agreement. The term of the agreement in the present case is only upto 29.4.2011. As in the previous years, the petitioner is entitled to work only on extension of the agreement being granted or on the execution of a fresh agreement, which the authorities have declined to do. No right of the petitioner is shown to have been violated. I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P6. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-