Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 3173
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.Jeyapaul, J.
Gopal Pandit
Versus
Punjab And Haryana High Gourt
Civil Writ Petition No. 14230 of 1990,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 30, 2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a temporary employee must be based on valid reasons and should not be discriminatory, especially in comparison to junior employees.
Headnote:
Termination - Temporary Employee - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 22 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 22 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 22 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 22
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the termination of his temporary employment by the 3rd respondent, which was confirmed by the 2nd and 1st respondents. The petitioner argued that the termination was arbitrary and discriminatory as he was senior in rank and the service of his juniors was not terminated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of the petitioner's service was arbitrary and discriminatory, especially considering that his juniors were retained in service and a new temporary employee was recruited on the same day.
Issues: The issues revolved around the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the termination, the authority's power to terminate temporary service without assigning a reason, and the failure to follow the circular regarding termination of temporary employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination of a temporary employee must be based on valid reasons such as unsatisfactory service or unsuitability for the position. It also emphasized that senior employees should not be terminated when their juniors are still in service, as it would be discriminatory.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and half pay for the period he was out of service.
M.Jeyapaul, J.
1. The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, which was confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent and further confirmed in the revision preferred before the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee by the 3rd respondent, Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat. The order of appointment would read that the appointment of the petitioner being a temporary one could be terminated at any time without any notice. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the 3rd respondent by passing the following order:-
"The services of Gopal Pandit son of Sh. Munshi Pandit, resident of Gangri Post Office, Hirodi District Hajari Bag, (Bihar), who is working as a temporary peon in this office are no longer required and therefore his services are hereby terminated w.e.f. 27.1.1989 F.N."
3. The only reason assigned by the 3rd respondent for termination of the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 27.01.1989 (FN) was that the temporary service of the petitionerwas no longer required.
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent contending inter-alia that the order passed by the 3rd respondent was arbitrary. Citing three decisions of this Court in Krishan Chand Goyal vs. Punjab State and another 1980(2) SLR 623, Punjab State Transport Department vs. Amarjit Singh, 1986(2) SLR 663 and Baldev Kishan Ashta vs. Union of India and others, 1986(1) SLR 378 the respondent has held that even if a temporary employee was senior in rank he could be terminated from service as his service was temporary in nature.
5. In the revision preferred by the petitioner before this Court, this Court having assigned a totally different reason from that of the one assigned in the original impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent simply confirmed the impugned order by the 2nd respondent. In other words, this Court held in the revision preferred by the petitioner that the service record of the petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, confirmed by the 2nd respondent terminating the temporary service of the petitioner, warranted no interference.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court would submit that a temporary employee, who is senior in rank when the juniors are very much available cannot be terminated except on the grounds that the service of the such employee is unsatisfactory or that he is unsuitable to the position or for alike reasons. He would further submit that the revisional forum had supplied its own reasons for confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent and confirmed by the 2nd respondent. Referring to the circular sent by the Registry of this Court, he would submit that the respondents had not adverted to such a circular issued to appointing authorities concerned that the senior shall not be terminated without assigning any reason when his juniors are still in service. Therefore, it is his submission that the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent and confirmed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents does not stand legal scrutiny.
7. The learned Senior Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State referring to the order of appointment would submit that the appointing authorityhas power to terminate the temporary service of the petitioner without assigning any reason. It is his further submission that one Mr. Singhal who was allegedly instrumental in passing the termination order, was not impleaded as a party before this Court. At any rate, it is his submission that this Court in the revision preferred by the petitioner has observed that the service record of the petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore he cannot be permitted to continue in service as temporary employee.
8. The 3rd respondent has passed the order of termination on the ground that the temporary service of the petitioner was no longer required. It has been demonstrated before thi
