IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3053 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 17.02.2010 Gurbachan Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Society and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is that yearly contracts which the petitioner was forced to enter into under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme is not in consonance with the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 1970 Act). He contends that every year, the petitioner was forced to enter into a new contract although the Scheme was continuing. He contends that in the year 2005, when initially the petitioner was appointed under the Sarv Shikha Abhiyan Scheme, there was no time limit fixed under the contract and he continued as such in the year 2006-07 as well. On completion of the Session in 2007, the petitioner was forced to enter into a contract vide Annexure P-9 wherein the period of one year was specified. He contends that the said contract which specifies the time frame is not in consonance with the 1970 Act. His further contention is that the earlier contract which was entered into in the year 2005 having not specified any period, now incorporation of a fixed term by the fresh contract amounts to changing the terms of the contract C.W.P.No.3053 of 2007 -2- which is not permissible under law. During the pendency of the writ petition, another contract (Annexure P-16) was got signed from the petitioner which he had challenged in this Court alleging the same to have been signed under protest. This Court vide order dated 18.7.2008 had kept the execution of the contract subject to the decision of the writ petition. He contends that an additional clause, namely, Clause-10 was added in the contract Annexure P-16 which provides that the appointee shall not be entitled to remuneration/emoluments for the period of summer vacation until and unless he/she is put on any duty/training during the said period which was again a violation of the terms of agreement initially agreed to between the parties and, thus, was not sustainable. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contends that the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme is a yearly scheme, for which the funds are released by the Central Government. Each year funds are received and accordingly the appointments under the Scheme are made or continued depending on the resources. He contends that the Scheme starts with the session and ends with the session itself and every time new terms and conditions are to be specified as per the requirement of the Scheme. The discretion is with the employee whether he wants to accept the terms and conditions as prescribed in the agreement and since each year, a fresh contract is entered into between the parties, the earlier contract having come to an end does not confer any right on the employee to have the same conditions in the subsequent contract. He, on this basis, contends that the agreements Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-16 are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the C.W.P.No.3053 of 2007 -3- records of the case. It is not in dispute that the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme is a yearly Scheme for which the funds are released on yearly basis by the Central Government. Each year on receipt of funds, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) formulates the requirements as per the funds made available which determines the extent and the number of employees to be engaged under the said Scheme. It is primarily in the form of a project which although has been continuing for some time but cannot be said to be a permanent feature as of now. Each year, therefore, a fresh scheme is prepared according to which the requirements are put-forth and if posts under the Scheme are available, options are given to the already working employees to take up the assignment, if they so desire. On conclusion of the contract, the agreement of service comes to an end and thereafter a fresh offer is made by the Society under the Scheme. On receipt of the fresh offer, it is for the concerned employee either to accept it or to reject it if they want to continue/work on the said project under the Scheme. They are required to sign a fresh contract. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that initially when the contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, there was no time fixed and as a matter of fact, in the Session 2006-07, there was no fresh contract, would not hold good for the reason that the Scheme is a yearly Scheme for which the funds are released by the Central Government each year. The contract, therefore, which was entered into by the petitioner i.e. vide Annexures P-9 and P-16 cannot be faulted with on this ground. The contention of the petitioner that with the incorporation of Clause-10 in Annexure P-16 contract for the Session 2008-2009 which is C.W.P.No.3053 of 2007 -4- an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents depriving him of the benefit of the summer vacations, also cannot be accepted for the reason that the period for which the appointee is either put on duty or training during the period of summer vacation, he is paid emoluments for the same. As per the terms of the contract, the salary has to be paid for the work done on monthly basis. Since during the summer vacations, the appointees under the contract are not performing the teaching duties they are not entitled for the salary for the said period. For this reason, the contention as made by the counsel for the petitioner challenging Clause- 10 in the contract, Annexure P-16, cannot be sustained. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that since the contract, Annexure P-16, was entered into by the petitioner under protest and was not accepted by him, it should not be said to be binding upon him, cannot also be accepted for the reason that the protest and challenge was primarily to the change in conditions of the contract which he had earlier entered into with the respondents. As has been held above, the contract is on yearly basis which is under the Scheme and each year, a new Scheme is floated which requires fresh contract depending upon the facts and circumstances of that Scheme. Thus, this contention also does not cut any ice. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. February 17, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE