1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGEMENT D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.64/1999 The Rajasthan State Social Welfare Advisory Board & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma Date of Order :: 18th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Praveen Balwada for the appellants Mr. Mahesh Gupta for the respondent Heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the contesting respondent. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.1998 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3594/1997 whereby and whereunder the writ application was allowed and the appellants- employer were directed to reinstate the respondent in services with all consequential benefits. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: The writ petitioner was engaged on contractual basis by the appellant on 7.9.1995 for a period of 89 days on remuneration of Rs.1,000/- per month. The contractual period however was extended by few months and by efflux of time the contractual engagement came to an end on 29.6.1996. The writ petitioner was apprised of this fact by letter dated 29.6.1996 as contained Annexure-7 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by order dated 29.6.1996, the writ 2 application was filed, which ultimately was allowed giving rise to this appeal. It appears that the impugned order, however, was stayed while admitting this appeal and thus the writ petitioner-respondent never worked under the appellants right from the date of his disengagement dated 29.6.1996. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that engagement of the writ petitioner was purely on contract basis upto 29.6.1996 which would be discernible from the date of his engagement dated 7.9.1995 as contained Annexure-6 and from the subsequent office orders whereby and whereunder the period was extended upto 29.6.1996 and, therefore, the engagement of the writ petitioner came to an end on 29.6.1996. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent however submitted that the writ petitioner could not have been engaged on the basis of contract, rather as per earlier direction of this Court, he could have been appointed on permanent basis like similarly situated persons who were appointed. It is undisputed that engagement of the writ petitioner on contractual basis vide Annexure-6 to the writ application was never challenged and the writ petitioner abided by the terms and conditions of the engagement letter dated 7.9.1995. The writ petitioner in this view of the matter cannot putforth his claim on some other grounds and he is to be governed by the terms of the contract. It is also not in dispute that the outer limit of the 3 engagement was 29.6.1996 and on that day itself, necessary intimation was sent to him treated him to be disengaged with effect from 29.6.1996. It is settled that contractual appointment remains in force till the date of engagement, unless the same is extended by any other contractual order or if is rescinded. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that after 29.6.1996, his period of engagement was further extended. The services of the writ petitioner therefore was co-terminus with the contract itself. Keeping in view the facts as referred to above, in our view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge would not be sustainable in law. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. No costs. (Mohammad Rafiq),J. (Narayan Roy), C.J. ravi/-