1. Petitioner had approached the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal by filing present petition O.A. No. 223 of 2018, to assail the order dated 30th December, 2017, whereby, in compliance of H.P. Government, Personnel Department letter No. Per(AP.B)B(15)-6/2012 dated 27.12.2017(Annexure A-5), his contractual services were terminated by respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi.

2. On abolition of erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, O.A. has been transferred to this court and has been numbered as CWPOA No. 3798 of 2020.

3. Petitioner's case, in brief, is that he was appointed as Junior Scale Stenographer on the recommendations of Screening Committee meeting held on 19.10.2015 pursuant to the due process undertaken for filling the said post on contract basis amongst from retired persons. Later on, in the year 2016, vide communication dated 10.08.2016, post of Junior Scale Stenographer in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Mandi was abolished and post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) was sanctioned on contractual basis against fixed salary of Rs. 7,860/- per month. Contractual service of the petitioner as Junior Scale Stenographer was to be determined on expiry of contract period on 6.11.2016.

4. In aforesaid circumstances, consent of the petitioner was sought, vide communication dated 1.11.2016(Annexure A-2), by the respondents to serve against the aforesaid post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) till an employee selected by Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Selection Board made available. In response thereto, petitioner consented and therefore, vide communication dated 7.11.2016(Annexure A-3), he was offered appointment of Junior Office Assistant (IT) on contract basis for one year or till the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) is filled on fixed contractual amount of Rs. 7,860/- per month.

5. In the year 2017, State took a decision with respect to employees engaged, re-engaged or retained on the basis of extension of service/re-employment of government after attaining age of superannuation and decided to terminate such services. The said policy decision was communicated to all concerned vide communication dated 27.12.2017(Annexure A-5), in pursuance whereof services of the petitioner were terminated.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that policy decision was taken by the Government to terminate all extensions in service or re-employment granted to the government servants after attaining the age of superannuation whereas in the present case, the petitioner was neither re-engaged as a retired employee nor his services were extended after retirement but he was selected by adopting due process and therefore, aforesaid decision of the Government is not applicable to him. Further that after termination of services of the petitioner, he had represented to the concerned authority on 01.01.2018 and the said representation forwarded by the Divisional Commissioner to the Government, is still pending consideration.

7. Response of the State is that petitioner was engaged against a regular post of Junior Scale Stenographer after approval of the Government to engage a retired person against the said post on contractual basis with a lump-sum salary on the basis of salary of the post and therefore, despite the fact that petitioner was appointed on the basis of recommendation of Screening Committee meeting, his appointment was as a re-appointment after retirement and therefore his case is to be governed by the decision of the Government not to continue such employment. Further that representation of the petitioner is to be deemed to have been rejected for the reasons, as stated in the reply, that the requisition to fill up the post in question has already been sent by the Department to the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board, Hamirpur vide communication dated 26.08.2016 and in the aforesaid facts claim of the petitioner is not sustainable.

8. Initially, petitioner was appointed as Junior Scale Stenographer on regular post which was to be filled amongst from unemployed youth by adopting due process. As a stop gap arrangement, this post was permitted to be filled by engaging a retired person on contract basis. The said post was abolished by the Government. Therefore, after abolition of the said post, petitioner cannot claim any right for continuation of his contractual service against said post in any manner.

9. Abolition of the said post is not under challenge nor could be as it is not the case of the petitioner that said abolition was arbitrary, malafide or with ulterior motive to oust the petitioner, rather petitioner was accommodated against newly created post. Selection Committee had recommended his appointment on the said post but not to the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) against which petitioner was appointed later on as stop gap arrangement but without following any procedure.

10. Earlier decision was taken by the Government to re-employee retired persons. Later on, Government took a policy decision not to continue such re-employment/employment.

11. Government has a right to make a policy and also to amend, repeal or replace it. No arbitrariness or malafide action on its part, in the present case, either has been alleged or has been made out. As a matter of fact decision of the Government has not been assailed. Therefore, no interference in the policy decision of the Government is warranted.

12. Petitioner was a contractual employee for a fixed term. That term ended on 6.11.2016. Thereafter, petitioner was re-engaged against another post again on contractual basis for one year or till the post was filled up through prescribed recruitment agency. Requisition to fill up the post through prescribed agency has already been sent. In view of the aforesaid policy decision of the State, petitioner's claim to continue his services is not sustainable.

13. In view of aforesaid discussion, present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.