Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Odisha against the judgment of the Orissa High Court which had directed reinstatement of the respondent, Dilip Kumar Mohapatra, with all service and financial benefits. The respondent was engaged as a Computer Technician on a purely temporary basis for a fixed term of one year or till regular selection, whichever was earlier, vide office order dated 23.04.2001. His services were terminated prematurely on 22.01.2002 without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved, he filed an application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which held that since his appointment was not made by following any known procedure for appointment to a public post, the only relief he could get was pay and allowances for the remaining period of his term (from 22.01.2002 to 30.04.2002). The High Court, however, allowed his writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed reinstatement, relying on the fact that two other similarly situated persons had been reinstated and regularised pursuant to orders in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting reinstatement. The Court observed that the respondent's engagement was purely temporary, for a fixed term, and not against any substantive vacancy or through a regular recruitment process. Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the Court cautioned against ordering regularisation or continuance of such employees. The Court noted that even if the termination before expiry of the term was improper, the appropriate relief was compensation for the unexpired period, as granted by the Tribunal. The fact that the State reinstated others did not entitle the respondent to similar relief, especially when the Tribunal's order was not perverse. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Tribunal's order granting compensation for the remaining period.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary/Fixed-Term Employment - Termination Before Expiry - Reinstatement - Where a person is engaged on a purely temporary basis for a fixed term to meet a specific exigency, and the engagement is not made by following any known recruitment procedure, termination before expiry of the term, even if without assigning reasons or opportunity of hearing, does not entitle the employee to reinstatement; compensation for the unexpired period is the appropriate relief. (Paras 14-17) B) Service Law - Regularisation - Umadevi Principle - Temporary/Ad Hoc Employees - The Constitutional Courts are cautioned against issuing directions for regularisation/absorption or continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. (Para 15) C) Service Law - Discrimination - Similarly Situated Employees - The fact that the State reinstated other similarly situated persons pursuant to orders in separate proceedings does not entitle the respondent to reinstatement, especially when the Tribunal's order granting compensation was not perverse and the engagement was not made through a regular recruitment process. (Paras 18-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in directing reinstatement of a temporary fixed-term employee whose services were terminated before expiry of the term, and whether compensation for the unexpired period was the appropriate relief.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal granting compensation to the respondent for the remaining period of his term (from 22.01.2002 to 30.04.2002).
Law Points
- Temporary engagement
- fixed-term employment
- termination before expiry
- principles of natural justice
- reinstatement
- compensation
- Umadevi principle
- regularisation
- discrimination
- similarly situated employees
