Service Law – Illegal Termination – UGC under its Tenth Plan issued grants to respondent-University including the grant for one lecturer in the Dept. of Political Science – Appellant appointed to the post of Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, however was terminated later stating that the post was abolished – Writ petition filed by appellant – Dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: Appointment of the appellant was not contractual in nature and he was being paid annual increments also – But, since he protested regarding the deduction of Rs.5,000 from his salary every month, the increments were stopped and later, his services were also terminated – UGC had directed the respondent to continue the Tenth Plan as Eleventh plan – Thus, the post held by the appellant would correspondingly continue even under the Eleventh Plan – There was no abolition of the post held by the appellant nor was the Department of Political Science abolished by the respondent – Termination of the services of the appellant was illegal – Order of the High Court set aside – Respondent to reinstate the appellant. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On a consideration of the material on record, the following inferences would arise:
(a) The appointment of the appellant was not contractual in nature and he was being paid annual increments also. But, since he protested regarding the deduction of Rs.5,000 from his salary every month, the increments were stopped and later, his services were also terminated.
(b) Further, when a communication was addressed by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University to the UGC for sanctioning of grant for Eleventh Plan, there was no mention regarding abolition of appellant’s post.
(c) There was also adequate strength of students for the continuation of the Department of Political Science by the University.
(d) The UGC had the funds to pay as grants for the post even after the completion of the Tenth Five Year Plan insofar as regular appointees are concerned and the appellant was one such regular appointee who was appointed after following the requisite procedure as prescribed under the Statutes of the University.
(e) The University, represented to the UGC on the one hand held out that the post of Assistant professor had been abolished while on the other hand, it also stated that the Department of Political Science was being continued having adequate strength of students.
(f) The UGC had directed the respondent-University to continue the Tenth Plan as Eleventh plan. The post held by the appellant would correspondingly continue even under the Eleventh Plan.
(g) There was no abolition of the post held by the appellant herein and nor was the Department of Political Science abolished by the respondent-University.
(h) It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the UGC, while reconsidering the representation of the appellant pursuant to the direction issued by this Court recommended that the termination of the services of the appellant was incorrect and therefore his services be continued as has been so done in the case of similarly placed appointees of the Tenth Plan. The UGC also recommended that in case the Department of Political Science has been abolished by the University then the appellant be absorbed in the Social Science Faculty of the University.
(i) There has been no objection raised to the aforesaid recommendation of the UGC and order of the respondentUniversity. [Para 26][429-E-H; 430-A-F]
1.2 The termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and not in accordance with law. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The respondent-University to reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and also grant him the benefit of continuity of services only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits, if any. The appellant will however, not be entitled to any disbursement of salary for the period from 31st March, 2007, till the date of reinstatement as he has not worked for the said period on the principle of “no work, no pay”. The appellant is, however, entitled to notional fixation of salary and other benefits in the event other persons similarly situated to the appellant have been extended such benefits by the University. [Para 27][430-F-H; 431-A]
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.