Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 89
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BISWANATH RATH, J.
Sabyasachi Mohanty - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opp. Parties
WP(C) No. 33209 of 2020
Decided On : 10-05-2022
For the Petitioner: M/s.Er. N.K. Mohanty, A. Dash & Dr. J.K. Lenka.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Ghosh, ASC, Mr. S. Das, SC, M/s. P.K. Rath, A. Behera, S.K. Behera, P. Nayak, S. Das & S. Rath.
An ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee.
Headnote:
WRIT - ASSISTANT FINANCE OFFICER - EXTENSION OF SERVICE - NON-EXTENSION OF SERVICE - STIGMATIC ORDER - NATURAL JUSTICE - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE - AD-HOC APPOINTMENT - REPLACEMENT OF AD-HOC EMPLOYEE - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - BACK WAGES - INTEREST ON BACK WAGES - WRIT PETITION ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an Assistant Finance Officer, was appointed on a contractual basis for one year, with the possibility of extension based on satisfactory performance. The Petitioner's services were extended multiple times, and he continued in the post for four years. However, the University decided not to grant any further extension to the Petitioner and issued an order to this effect. The Petitioner challenged this order, arguing that it was illegal and violative of the terms and conditions of his appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the University's decision not to extend the Petitioner's services was illegal and violative of the terms and conditions of his appointment. The Court held that the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation of continued employment, given his satisfactory performance and the University's previous extensions of his services. The Court also found that the University's decision was stigmatic, as it implied that the Petitioner was not performing his duties satisfactorily. The Court further held that the University had failed to comply with the principles of natural justice, as it had not given the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard before terminating his services.
Issues: 1. Whether the University's decision not to extend the Petitioner's services was illegal and violative of the terms and conditions of his appointment? 2. Whether the University's decision was stigmatic? 3. Whether the University had failed to comply with the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the University's decision not to extend the Petitioner's services was illegal and violative of the terms and conditions of his appointment, as the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation of continued employment, given his satisfactory performance and the University's previous extensions of his services. 2. The Court held that the University's decision was stigmatic, as it implied that the Petitioner was not performing his duties satisfactorily. 3. The Court held that the University had failed to comply with the principles of natural justice, as it had not given the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard before terminating his services.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the University's order not to extend the Petitioner's services, and directed the University to treat the Petitioner as continuing in the post of Assistant Finance Officer. The Court also directed the University to pay the Petitioner back wages and interest on back wages.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a Writ Petition filed by an ousted employee by the Employer, the National Law University of Odisha, Cuttack, herein after called as, “NLUO” seeking a challenge to the letter dated 17.10.2020 issued by the NLUO informing the Petitioner of its decision for not giving any further extension to the Petitioner in the Post of Assistant Finance Officer and that he will be relieved from his duties on 19th October, 2020 at 9 a.m. In the said letter the Petitioner was also directed to hand over charge along with all Files/Documents/Audit Reports in his custody to one Mr. Bibhu Prasad Kar, Assistant Registrar of the NLUO, particularly on 19th October, 2020 at 9 a.m. The Petitioner in assailing the impugned order at Annexure-6 has involved the following prayer :-
“Under the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing the parties be pleased to :
(a) quash the letter dated 17.10.2020 under Annexure-6 issued by the O.P.No.5;
And
(b) direct the O.P.No.5 to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Assistant Finance Officer at National Law University, Odisha within a stipulated time period along with all consequential service benefits;
And
(c) O.P.No.4 may be directed to conduct an impartial an fair investigation taking into consideration the reports submitted by the O.P.No.3 and the Special Audit Report under Annexure-7 series.
And
(d) regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 14.10.2018 along with all consequential service benefits;
And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper.”
2. Factual aspect involving the case is that the Petitioner is a Holder of Degree in Master in Business Administration (Finance) from Sikkim-Manipal University and Master of Finance and control from the Utkal University. While working in the Choudwar Municipality, finding publication of an Advertisement on 17.10.2015 in the Odiya Premier “The Samaj”, vide Annexure-2 applied for the post of Assistant Finance Officer. The Petitioner was called for the interview vide letter dated 15.9.2016. The Petitioner claimed, involving a competitive selection process he was found successful in the interview, and therefore, was duly selected for the post of Assistant Finance Officer in the NLUO. Communication of his selection by the NLUO, vide their letter dated 14.10.2016 finds place at Annexure-4 of the Brief. Referring to Annexure-4, the Petitioner claimed, vide Clause-2 of the terms and conditions therein, he was offered with the Post initially for one year with further disclosure that the University has the rights to decide upon his continuation based on his satisfactory performance. In the same communication through the terms and conditions, the Petitioner was assured of long term employment and a favourable decision be taken on his continuation by the Employer with further information that the Medi-claim Insurance Policy purchased in his favour will cover both the Petitioner and his family. While disclosing the gross salary package, vide Clause-5 & Clause-6 of the terms and conditions, the Employer informed the Petitioner that his service in the University may be terminated without assigning any reason at one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof with further rider in favour of the Petitioner that if he wants to quit the job that also required either one month’s notice or on payment of salary in lieu thereof. Further under Clause-7 of the terms and conditions the Petitioner was also informed that his appointment was subject to the Regulations of the University as may be in force at any time. In issuing such offer of appointment, the Petitioner was requested to communicate his acceptance and joining duty at the earliest on or before 1st November, 2016, failure of which offer of appointment shall stand cancelled. Fur
