Back
2022 Supreme(Sikk) 17
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Biswanath Somadder, CJ., Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
Sunita Pradhan - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim & Anr. - Respondents
WA No. 03/2022
Decided On : 21-04-2022
Mr. Yam Kumar Subba, Ms. Kingzum Sherpa, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Yadev Sharma, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Asst. Govt. Advocate, for the Respondents
A writ of mandamus cannot compel the regularization of a contractual employee's service unless exceptional circumstances are established, and mere unequal treatment of others does not substantiate a claim under Article 14.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - The appeal arises from a judgment allowing the writ petition in part, dismissing the prayer for regularization and extension of service beyond the contractual period. The court noted no proof of unsatisfactory service or transfer order was presented by the respondents. The termination order is set aside, with the requirement for payment of salary up to the end of the contractual term. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Writ of Mandamus - The court emphasized that it cannot compel the State to regularize the service of a contractual employee unless exigent circumstances exist. The principle of negative equality cannot be invoked to challenge the alleged unequal treatment of other contracted employees. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was terminated while her contractual service was extended for others; the grounds for termination cited were unsubstantiated.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the termination order and mandated salary payments without extending the contractual service period.
Issues: The core issues were the validity of the termination based on unsatisfactory service and the right to seek regularization of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that without proof of a satisfactory claim for termination and no exceptional circumstances, the order was unwarranted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal context and initial judgment details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's analysis of termination validity. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on equality and regularization. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. no palpable infirmities in prior judgment. (Para 7) |
| 5. appeal dismissed for reasons stated. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Biswanath Somadder, CJ. - This appeal arises in respect of the judgment and order dated 08th March, 2022, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) No. 15 of 2021 (Ms. Sunita Pradhan v. State of Sikkim and Another). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to allow the writ petition - in part - while dismissing the writ petitioner's prayer for regularization and extension of her service beyond the contractual service period.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.
3. For convenience, relevant portions of the impugned judgment and order are quoted hereinbelow:
'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 pay the petitioner her consolidated salary with all other benefits that would have accrued to her for the period from the last date of payment of consolidated salary till 31.03.2021 on which date her service would have come to an end.
8. The other grievance of the petitioner that she was treated unequally with those contractual employees whose terms had been extended, cannot be examined by this court in view of the fact that the petitioner had chosen not to make them parties in the present proceedings. The petitioner's prayer for regularization and extension of the service beyond the contractual service period cannot be granted. The writ petition stands partially allowed to the above extent. The parties to bear their respective costs. All pending interim applications are accordingly disposed of.'
4. The learned advocate representing the appellant/writ petitioner submits before this Court that even during the pendency of the instant matter, the concerned respondent authority has extended the contractual service period of some other teachers, who were similarly situate and circumstanced. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant/writ petitioner's contractual service ought to have been regularised. In or
