SBCWP No.9611/02. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9611/2002. Birma Bai & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order:- 9/7/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma for the petitioners. Shri V.S. Yadav for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 28/11/2002 whereby, the respondents have terminated their services. Petitioners were appointed on contract basis vide order dated 22/1/2002 for a period of one year commencing from 1/2/2002. According to the petitioners, their services were liable to be extended subject to performance. 3) It was argued that in the normal case, period of one year would come to an end on 31/1/2003 and if the respondents wanted to remove the petitioners, that could be done only after serving upon them prior notice of one month or notice pay in lieu thereof. The respondents have terminated their services at a premature stage. In suppoort of his aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Division Bench's judgment of SBCWP No.9611/02. 2 this Court in DBSAW No.394/2001 (Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) decided on 16/9/2001. 4) Respondents have contested the writ petition and argued that petitioners were not appointed on regular basis and their appointment was made only on contract basis and their period of contract was specific. Their appointments were made by the District Reproductive & Child Health Officer on a monthly salary of Rs.300/-. Condition No.4 of the appointment clearly stipulated that in the event of person being discontinued, their services would liable to came to an end. It was argued that the Government of Rajasthan issued an order on 2/11/2002 whereby the government had decided that the Scheme is valid only upto 1/12/2002 as such, contract with NGOs for hiring Sahayak could not be continued beyond 30/11/2002 and was liable to be terminated from that date. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners rejoined and submitted that Director Family Welfare has issued an order on 6/6/2001 No.F.(20)/RCH/FW/2001/1376 informing all District Reproductive & Child Health Officers that all PHN Lab Technician, Anaesthetian and Sahayikayen under the RCH Programme, can be continued as the term of RCH scheme was upto March, 2002. 6) The circular aforesaid when analysed with the subsequent circular issued by the Director dated 2/11/2002, it makes it clear that the Director passed the aforesaid order under the instructions of the government which terminated the scheme w.e.f. SBCWP No.9611/02. 3 1/12/2002 therefore, all contracts for hiring Sahayikayen were ordered to not to continue beyond 30/11/2002 and were liable to be terminated by 30/11/2002. It was clearly stated that the scheme will ceased to exist in all Districts as per the directions of the Government. The judgment of the Division Bench which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable because circular of the government whereby scheme was terminated w.e.f. 1/12/2002 was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. Though, it is correct that the contract pursuant to which petitioners were appointed that their term of appointment would be for one year but at the same time, former Condition No.2 of the contract provided that in case their services are brought to an end prior to the expiry of the term of contract, it can be done only after prior notice of one month but at the same time, Condition No.4 of the contract provided that with the closure of the scheme, the services would be terminated automatically. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil