Back
Supreme Court Of India
Vice Chancellor, M.D.University, Rohtak - Appellant
Versus
Jahan Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 03/08/2007
Termination - Employment - Maharishi Dayanand University Act, 1975 - Regulation 26(i)(c)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's services were terminated during the period of probation by Maharishi Dayanand University. He questioned the legality of the termination and subsequently accepted an appointment at the University of Zambia. Upon his return, he sought increments during the period of leave, which was denied by the University.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's termination was lawful, and he was not entitled to increments during the period of leave as per the extant regulations.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the respondent's termination, entitlement to increments during leave, and the retrospective effect of the amended regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the University's termination of the respondent's services was lawful. It also ruled that the amended regulations could not have retrospective effect and that the respondent was not entitled to increments during leave.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the decision of the learned Single Judge, allowing the appeal and directing that any amount paid to the respondent by the University should not be recovered.
JUDGMENT:
S.B. SINHA, J :
Respondent herein was appointed as a Reader in Physics in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the University). His services were terminated during the period of probation by an order dated 20.06.1979. He questioned the legality of said order of termination in a Civil Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, but the same was dismissed.
2. It, however, appears that the respondent filed an application for his appointment as a Reader in the University of Zambia. The Zambia University accepted the said offer on the conditions mentioned therein, stating :
"If you are willing to accept the appointment on the above terms, I shall be grateful if you will sign and date all the enclosed copies of this letter, signing also and dating one copy of the terms and conditions of service sent herewith, and returning to me all the enclosed copies of this letter and one copy of the Terms and Conditions of Service within thirty days of the date of this letter."
3. Respondent accepted the said offer of appointment on 4.10.1983, stating :
"I accept appointment on the terms set out in this letter and in the document headed "Terms and Conditions of Service for Academic Staff". I agree to carry out such duties as are assigned to me from time to time by the Vice Chancellor and the Dean of the School of Natural Sciences."
4. Although, the respondent was not in employment of the University he purported to have filed an application for his reappointment in the post of a reader of the University on 05.10.1983, which was accepted on the same day.
5. The very fact that the respondent was appointed on the same day, as on the date of filing of application, evidently no selection process was undergone therefor.
6.He joined the services of the University on 05.10.1983. He applied for grant of extra-ordinary leave without pay for a period of two years, in view of his assignment with the Zambia University and the Executive Council of the University by a resolution dated 21.11.1983 acceded to the said request. On expiry of the said period of two years, he joined the University again in August 1985. He thereafter prayed for grant of increments in the pay scale during the period he was on extra-ordinary leave. The University referred the matter to the University Grants Commission, which in terms of its letter dated 10.12.1987 opined that the matter was within the domain of the State Government, stating :
"I am directed to refer to your letter No. ET-2/87/13370 dated 21.9.87 on the above subject and to say that being an administration matter of the University. I am to request you to approach the State Government/Department of Education in this regard."
The Executive Council, however, amended the resolution on 28.11.1990.
8. The State Government, however, when approached refused to grant its approval in terms of its letter dated 04.02.1992, stating :
"Reference your letter No.ET-2/91/28102 dated 24.10.1991 on the above cited subject.
The Govt. have observed the decision taken by the Executive Council of M.D. University, Rohtak under its Reso. No.13 dated 28.11.1990, thereby proposing to grant the benefit of Extra Ordinary Leave (maximum three years) towards annual increments. The Govt. have found that this provision is contrary to the Govt. rules. There is no provision either in Govt. rules or in other Universities in the State for granting this benefit to the Govt./University employees. This proposal shall create anomaly amongst the Govt. employees and other University employees vis-a-vis M.D. University employees. In view of these facts, the University is requested to take immediate action in canceling these facts, the University is requested to take immediate action in canceling the decision
taken by the Executive Council under Resolution No.13 dated 28.11.1990."
Yet again the respondent prayed for condonation of break in his service with all resultant benefits, but yet again the S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
