Back
2022 Supreme(Sikk) 14
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
Sunita Pradhan - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 15 of 2021
Decided On : 08-03-2022
Mr. Yam Kumar Subba, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Assistant Government Advocate, for the Respondents
Termination of contractual service requires substantiation of claims; absence of evidence renders termination invalid.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Principles of natural justice - Service termination - Termination order set aside due to lack of justification for 'unsatisfactory performance' claim - Respondents failed to provide evidence of performance issues or notice of a transfer order - Court emphasized the absence of proof against the petitioner and upheld her continuous reappointment history. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Equal Protection - A grievance of unequal treatment amongst similarly situated employees could not be addressed due to absence of parties in litigation - The plea for regularization beyond contractual period denied. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a contractual employee since 2014, challenged her termination on 25.01.2021, cited as unsatisfactory performance, and sought regularization and extension of service. She claimed lack of foundation for the termination and stated similar employees' contracts were extended. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient grounds for the termination, allowing the petitioner to receive her due consolidated salary till the end of her originally contracted term. (Paras 7)
Issues: The key issues included whether the termination was justified based on performance and the implications of the alleged transfer order. (Paras 5, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court focused on the lack of tangible evidence for claims of unsatisfactory performance and emphasized due process in termination matters, setting a precedent for contractual employment disputes. (Paras 6, 7)
Result: Writ petition partially allowed; termination order set aside.
JUDGMENT
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The writ petition seeks to assail the order of termination bearing O.O. No. 1484/Adm/Edn dated 25.01.2021 (the termination order) issued by the respondent no.2 terminating the petitioner's contractual service on the sole ground of unsatisfactory performance. The petitioner also seeks regularization and extension of her contractual period and other incidental reliefs.
2. The petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 04.06.2014 as post graduate teacher (commerce) on temporary basis till the end of the academic session 2014. Thereafter, on 20.02.2015, 20.02.2016, 24.02.2017 the petitioner was reappointed on temporary ad-hoc basis for fixed tenures, the last one for a period of six months from the date of her joining. Thereafter, the petitioner's ad-hoc appointment was extended on 07.08.2017 till March, 2018. The petitioner was then again temporarily engaged for two terms on ad-hoc basis on 12.02.2018 and 20.02.2019. By a general order dated 14.12.2020 the term of employment for all ad-hoc teachers (which would also include the petitioner) appointed till the academic session of 2020 was extended till 31.03.2021. However, before her contractual service came to an end the respondents terminated her service. This was, as stated above, on the sole ground that her service performance was unsatisfactory. The petitioner has challenged this termination order on various grounds.
3. Heard Mr. Yam Kumar Subba, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is his submission that the termination order also casts a stigma on her and hampers her career. It is submitted that the allegation that her performance was unsatisfactory was made without any basis. In fact records would reveal that her performance has been satisfactory. It is also submitted that several similarly placed contractually appointed teacher's terms have been extended by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner must also be treated equally.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General however, submits that the petitioner's appointment was contractual and her service had to be terminated as she did not comply with the transfer order No.8/Edn/Adm dated 03.07.2020 (the transfer order).
5. The ground for termination as above was disclosed by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. It was not reflected in the termination order. This statement was denied by the petitioner in her rejoinder, asserting that no such transfer order had been issued to her and she had therefore, continued to work in the last place of posting till she was terminated. The respondents have not denied the assertion made by the petitioner in the rejoinder. The learned Additional Advocate General admits that the respondents have not filed any record to show that the petitioner was in fact served with the transfer order.
6. This court has perused the pleadings and the records placed. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court is of the view that the assertion in the termination order that her services was unsatisfactory does not stand to reason. It is noticed that the petitioner has been continuously reappointed or her contractual service extended from 04.06.2014 till the date of her termination. There was no reason for the respondents to have done so if her service had been unsatisfactory. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that it was because of her failure to comply with the transfer order that the respondents deemed it to be unsatisfactory service. The respondents have however not placed any record to establish this fact.
7. The service of the petitioner is a contractual service which would have ended on 31.03.2021. She was however, terminated on 25.01.2021 itself before her term ended on the sole ground that her service was unsatisfactory. There is no proof that her service was unsatisfactorily or that she was served with the transfer order. Resultantly, the impugned termination order No.1484/Adm/Edn dated 25.01.2021 is set aside. The respondents shall pa
