Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sharda Kala and Sanskrutik Mandal, a registered public trust, challenged an order dated 2.9.2004 passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Nagpur (respondent No.6). The impugned order held that respondent Nos.1 to 4 were duly appointed as employees by the petitioner, that the District Social Welfare Officer and Divisional Social Welfare Officer had granted administrative approval to their appointments on a year-to-year basis, and that salary was paid to them until 31.3.1999. The officer further found that their services were illegally terminated without any notice, and therefore, they were entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The petitioner contended that the appointments were not approved by the competent authority and that the order was without jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the appointments were approved and that the termination was illegal. The court examined the material on record, including the fact that the respondents had previously filed writ petitions which were withdrawn with liberty to pursue other remedies. The court held that the Divisional Social Welfare Officer's order was based on the material before him and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The court noted that the appointments were approved by the Social Welfare Department and that the termination was without notice, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of reinstatement and back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Illegal Termination - Without Notice - The Divisional Social Welfare Officer held that the termination of employees by the petitioner trust was illegal as no notice of termination was served upon them, and directed reinstatement with back wages. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or illegality. (Paras 2-6) B) Administrative Law - Administrative Order - Legitimate Expectation - The appointments of respondent Nos.1 to 4 were approved by the Social Welfare Department on a year-to-year basis, creating a legitimate expectation of continued employment. The termination without notice violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 3-5) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Interference with Administrative Orders - The High Court declined to interfere with the order of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer as it was based on material on record and did not suffer from any error of law or fact. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer holding that the termination of respondent Nos.1 to 4 was illegal and directing their reinstatement with back wages is legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer dated 2.9.2004 directing reinstatement of respondent Nos.1 to 4 with back wages.
Law Points
- Termination without notice is illegal
- Administrative approval of appointments creates legitimate expectation
- Writ petition against administrative order maintainable
