1. Termination of service of a Warrant Officer on grounds of being over age at the time of appointment — Challenge against termination order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 283
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.Santosh Hegde : S.Saghir Ahmad
Lakhan Lal Tripathi
Versus
Commandant General
Case No. : 2854 of 1996
Date of Decision : 3/10/99
Termination of service based on age eligibility without providing the employee an opportunity to be heard is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Termination of service - Termination of services on the ground of being over age at the time of appointment without providing an opportunity to the employee to contest the finding is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice. (Para 6)
(B) Service Law - Absorption - Where other similarly situated employees whose services were terminated due to the disbanding of a force have been absorbed in other government posts, an employee whose services were illegally terminated is also entitled to be considered for absorption. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An employee was appointed as a Cadet Warrant Officer and subsequently as a Warrant Officer. After four years, his services were terminated on the grounds that he was over age at the time of appointment to the post of Warrant Officer and the government refused to relax the age limit. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against this termination.
Findings of Court:
The initial appointment was valid as the employee was below the age limit. The subsequent termination based on age was decided unilaterally without giving the employee an opportunity to be heard. Since other employees affected by the disbanding of the force were absorbed into other government posts, the appellant should also be considered for absorption.
Issues: Whether the termination of services on the ground of being over age, without providing an opportunity to the employee to respond, was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: A decision regarding age eligibility that leads to termination cannot be taken unilaterally; the principles of natural justice require that the affected party be given an opportunity to contest the finding. Termination passed without such opportunity is arbitrary.
Result: Appeal disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the absorption of the appellant on an appropriate post.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondents contended that reinstatement is impossible as the land army has been disbanded. (Para 7 )
3. Termination based on age without providing the employee an opportunity to be heard is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Termination of service based on a factual determination without providing the affected party an opportunity to respond violates the principles of natural justice. (Para 6 )
5. Respondents directed to consider the absorption of the appellant on an appropriate post. (Para 7 )
6. Does termination of service based on age without a hearing violate legal principles?
Yes, deciding whether an employee is over age or entitled to relaxation without giving them an opportunity to respond is a one-sided decision that violates the principles of natural justice and is arbitrary. (Para 6 )
7. Can an employee be considered for absorption in other government posts if their original department is disbanded?
Yes, if other similarly affected employees have been absorbed in various government posts upon the disbandment of the organization, the court may direct the government to consider the absorption of the illegally terminated employee. (Para 7 )
(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 23-8-1991 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was rejected.
(2) THE State of Madhya Pradesh constituted bhumi sena (land army) under Bhumi Sena Adhiniyam, 1981 which was enforced with effect from 11-11-1981. The appellant was appointed as a Cadet Warrant Officer on 3-5- 1982. He joined the post on 4-5-1982. Thereafter, by order dated 9-11-1982, the appellant was appointed temporarily as a Warrant Officer in the scale of pay of Rs 195-300. Four years later, by an order dated 16-9-1986, his services were terminated on the ground that at the time of appointment on the post of Warrant Officer, he was found to be beyond age. The termination order recites as under:
"SERVICES of Shri L.L. Tripathi appointed as Warrant Officer vide this Office Order No. Pers/LA(AGR)/2626/82, dated 9-11-1982 are hereby terminated with immediate effect because he has been found over age at the time of appointment and his case for relaxation of age-limit has not been considered by Government. 2. In lieu of one months notice for termination of services, one month salary be paid."
(3) IT is this order which was challenged before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal, as pointed out above, dismissed the claim petition.
(4) THE appellants date of birth is 4-5-1952. This is not disputed. On 3-5- 1982, when he was appointed as Cadet Warrant Officer, he was undisputedly below 30 years of age and therefore his initial appointment was not bad. For further advancement in the service, the appellant was given training and was thereafter appointed on the post of Warrant Officer. There was, therefore, no question of the appellant being over age at that stage.
(5) THAT apart, the services of the appellant were terminated for the reason that he was found over age at the time of appointment on the post of Warrant Officer and when a reference was made to the State Government for relaxation in age, the Government refused to consider the matter.
(6) WHETHER the appellant was over age and whether he was entitled to any relaxation in age are questions which could not have been decided by the respondents by taking a one-sided decision without giving any opportunity to the appellant to indicate that the opinion of the respondents that he was over age was not correct. The principles of natural justice were not observed and the termination order was arbitrarily passed.
(7) IT is contended by the respondents counsel that the land army has since been disbanded with effect from 7-11-1992. That being so, it would not be possible to grant the relief of reinstatement to the appellant. The respondents have, however, filed a counter-affidavit in which they themselves have stated that when the land army was disbanded, 157 persons were affected and their services were terminated. But 148 of them have since been absorbed in various government posts. Having regard to this averment in the counter-affidavit, we direct the respondents to consider the absorption of the appellant also on an appropriate post as he had served the Government for about 4 years when his services were illegally terminated. The appeal is disposed of finally with the above directions. No costs.
