Service Law – Termination – Plea of continuity of service with consequential benefits – Respondent was appointed as a contract conductor in the appellant-corporation – He was subjected to a departmental enquiry, after which he was terminated – Respondent preferred departmental appeal, which was dismissed – However in departmental review, order for the re-engagement of the respondent on contract was issued – After his re-engagement, respondent filed writ petition and pleaded for continuity of service with consequential service benefits – Single Judge of the High Court considering the earlier decision dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012, disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to extend the benefit of continuity of service to him from the date of termination until the date of his re-engagement except for the period during which he was absent – Direction was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court – On appeal, held: In instant case, respondent did not assail either the termination of his services following the enquiry or the fresh appointment – He only sought benefit of continuity of service from the date of the earlier termination until the date of his re-engagement – Grant of continuity by the Single Judge was not sustainable unless the order of termination and/or the fresh appointment were challenged and adjudicated upon, seniority would necessarily have to count with effect from the date of the fresh appointment – As a matter of principle, continuity can be granted when an order of termination is set aside, to ensure that there is no hiatus in service – Thus, grant of continuity of service by the High Court was manifestly misconceived.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The order of the Single Judge of the High Court in the present case, was exclusively based on the earlier decision dated 29.02.2012 in writ petition no.2786 of 2012, the judgment of the Single Judge indicates that the earlier case also dealt with persons who were working as contract employees who were appointed after a regular selection. In some cases, termination orders were passed without an enquiry on allegations of misconduct while in other cases, an enquiry was conducted. [Para 5] [618-C-D]
2. In the present case, the workman did not choose to assail either the termination of his services following the enquiry or the fresh appointment. All that was sought was that he should have the benefit of continuity of service from the date of the earlier termination until re-engagement. [Para 6] [619-E]
3. Such a direction could not have been issued by the Single Judge without the termination being put into question. The grant of continuity was not sustainable for the simple reason that unless the order of termination and/or the fresh appointment were challenged and adjudicated upon, seniority would necessarily have to count with effect from the date of the fresh appointment. As a matter of first principle, continuity can be granted when an order of termination is set aside, to ensure that there is no hiatus in service. [Para 7] [619-F]
4. There is another reason why the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is common ground that the appellant has recruited personnel like the present respondent on contract after a regular process of selection. Eventually, the contract employees are to be regularised. Granting continuity of service to a person such as the respondent, who was found to have committed misconduct, would place him on the same footing as other contractual employees who have a record without blemish. Hence, once a fresh appointment was given to the respondent and neither the termination nor the fresh engagement was placed in issue, the grant of continuity of service by the High Court was manifestly misconceived. [Para 8] [619-G-H; 620-A]
5. The earlier order of the Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 was in a batch of cases, where termination orders were issued without holding an enquiry in certain cases and after holding an enquiry in others, though in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was in that view of the matter that the direction contained in Clause 6 of the operative order provided that in cases where no enquiry was conducted, the Corporation would be at liberty to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, on the allegations of misconduct. [Para 9] [620-B-C]
6. There is a considerable degree of merit in the submission of the Corporation that in deciding the entire batch of cases by a common order, the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court unfortunately lost sight of the facts of each individual case. [Para 10] [620-D-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.