HARSHIT SAH vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Lok Pal Singh, J

Heard.Â

Admit.  Â

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 22.10.2016 passed by Officer In-charge, ECHS, Ranikhet, District

Almora on the post of Physiotherapist. Petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis for 3 months. Thereafter, his contractual engagement was

extended every year.

From the perusal of the instructions issued by respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 24.05.2011 contractual employees serving in Exservicemen

Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) Polyclinics were to be permitted to continue till they attain the age of superannuation. It is the contention of

learned counsel for the petitioner that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner is continuing as a Physiotherapist as a

contractual employee, being the contractual employee, the respondents have no authority to fill the same post by appointing another contractual

employee.Â

In view thereof, the respondents are restrained from giving any appointment to any one in pursuant to the instructions dated 22.12.2017.

Three weeks’ time is granted to the respondents/Union of India to file counter affidavit.Â

Interim relief application (2175 of 2018) stands disposed of accordingly.Â

It is further made clear that until further orders of this Court, the petitioner will continue on the post of Nursing Assistant.Â