A contractual employee whose engagement has expired by efflux of time cannot claim reinstatement or back wages based on subsequent acquittal in a criminal case, as the acquittal does not resurrect a contract that had already terminated.

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicant seeking reliefs against the respondents in relation to his disengagement from contractual service in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC). The applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09.06.2016, by which he was disengaged from service. He has further sought reinstatement with immediate effect, grant of back wages along with interest and consequential benefits, costs of litigation, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Tribunal in the circumstances of the case.

2. The applicant’s counsel submitted before the Tribunal that the applicant had been serving as a Junior Engineer (JE) on contractual basis in the Engineering Department of the SDMC. According to the applicant, he was abruptly disengaged from service through the office order dated 09.06.2016 solely on account of the registration of FIR No. 75/12 under Sections 304A /34 IPC at Police Station Lodhi Colony. The counsel argued that the impugned order was stigmatic in nature because it specifically referred to the FIR and thereby attached a stigma to the applicant’s character and conduct. It was further argued that the disengagement was effected without issuance of any notice or opportunity of hearing.

3. In support of the factual background leading to the FIR, the applicant relied upon a press clipping dated 04.07.2012. The incident concerned debris or “malba” lying on the road, due to which a biker lost balance while driving, sustained injuries, and eventually died. Following the incident, an FIR was lodged in the year 2012 by a relative of the deceased biker. The applicant and another lower-level employee, namely a Mate/MTS working in the MCD, were arrayed as accused in the criminal proceedings. Both officials faced trial before the competent criminal court. Ultimately, by judgment dated 26.03.2018, the Trial Court acquitted both accused persons of all charges.

4. It is contended that after his acquittal, he submitted representations before the respondents seeking reconsideration of his disengagement and restoration of his employment. However, according to him, the representations were neither considered nor responded to by the authorities, compelling him to approach the Tribunal through the present O.A. Learned counsel emphasized that the disengagement order was passed solely because of the pendency of the criminal case and, therefore, once the applicant stood acquitted, the very foundation and justification for his disengagement ceased to exist. It was argued that the applicant at least deserved reconsideration for re-engagement on contractual basis.

5. Counsel for the respondents contested the O.A. by filing a counter affidavit dated 04.12.2019. In their response, the respondents admitted that the applicant had initially been engaged as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis with effect from 30.06.2010 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Maintenance-I, Central Zone of the erstwhile South Delhi Municipal Corporation. However, the respondents stated that the applicant’s contractual engagement was for a limited period and that the extension of his contract beyond 01.04.2011 had already been rejected. According to the respondents, the applicant had been informed of this fact through a communication dated 12.12.2013, and therefore he could not claim to be in lawful service after 01.04.2011.

6. Counsel for the respondents further argued t