Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently directed the Odisha government to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation to a computer technician who was engaged on a temporary basis at a college in Balasore. Despite being appointed for a one-year term, the technician was removed prematurely, prompting legal action.

A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta observed that the state’s actions amounted to unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals. This, the court noted, led to unwarranted expectations and prolonged litigation for the affected employee.

Court, however, set aside the Orissa High Court's order which directed for reinstatement of the employee, who was engaged on May 1, 2001 in office of the Principal of a college. Still, his services were dispensed with on January 22, 2002.

"No doubt, an attempt is there on part of the State to distinguish the case of the first respondent with those in whose favour Orissa Administrative Tribunal’s order was there, but details of those distinguishing features have not been brought to our notice during the course of hearing. Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the first respondent as full and final settlement of all claims against the appellant," the bench said.

Appellant Odisha government filed the plea against the High Court's order of December 15, 2022, which directed for reinstatement of respondent Dilip Kumar Mohapatra in service with all benefits as due and admissible to the post.

The High Court had allowed the respondent employee's plea against the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack.

The tribunal had refused any relief to the respondent, holding that he was not appointed by following any procedure known to law for appointment to a public post, and the engagement was for a fixed term, the only relief which could be granted to him is pay and allowances from the date of his disengagement (i.e. January 22, 2002) till expiry of his original term of engagement (i.e. April 30, 2002).

It was the government's contention that the disengagement of the computer technician was non-stigmatic and did not violate principles of natural justice, as the engagement was purely temporary and limited to one year.

It had further contended that the reinstatement of two similarly situated individuals, as directed by a tribunal in a separate proceeding, should not serve as a basis for allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent. The government maintained that the tribunal’s order was neither illegal nor perverse, emphasizing that the circumstances of the cases were distinct.

The respondent countered the state’s claims, arguing that the disengagement was arbitrary and carried out without providing any justification, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It was further contended that the state’s assertion of reduced workload as the reason for terminating services lacked merit, especially since similarly situated individuals who were also disengaged were subsequently reinstated.

The respondent’s counsel emphasized that the state, as an employer, cannot discriminate between employees in comparable situations. On this basis, it was argued that the High Court’s decision to order the respondent’s reinstatement was entirely justified.

After examining the matter, the bench said engagement was purely temporary and there was no material for a pre-existing or freshly created substantive vacancy and that his engagement or appointment was made by following a procedure prescribed by statutory rules or executive instruction.

The bench pointed out in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors Vs Umadevi and Ors (2006), the top court had cautioned Constitutional Courts against issuance of directions for regularisation or absorption or continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.

"Importantly, in this case, the Tribunal had returned a finding that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that appointment was made by following any known procedure for appointment to a public post," the bench said.

The court said the appellant's stand before the Tribunal was that due to shortage of work available, such persons were disengaged.

"In these circumstances, even if it is assumed that in absence of any allegation of misconduct, they ought not to have been disengaged prior to completion of their term, direction to reinstate / re-engage them, particularly after the term period was over, was not justified. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in only granting compensation to the first respondent for the remaining period of his term," the bench felt.

The court, however, noted the High Court granted relief of reinstatement/re-engagement to the first respondent because in its view the State had reinstated similarly disengaged persons pursuant to Tribunal’s orders passed in separate proceedings instituted by such of those persons.

"This, in our view, was not legally correct because the High Court ought to have examined Tribunal’s order qua first respondent on its own merit, particularly when the High Court was not bound by Tribunal’s order. Besides that, the State cannot be forced to suffer an order which is not sound in law," the bench said.

The court also pointed out in State of Odisha Vs Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) after noticing a series of decisions, a three-judge bench of the court rejected an argument that petitioners must get the benefit of parity even if they are not otherwise entitled to the relief.

The bench also referred to the State of UP & Ors Vs Rajkumar Sharma & Ors (2006), where it was held that even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake, or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. It was also held that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake.

"We are of the view that the direction of the High Court to reinstate / reengage the first respondent, particularly after lapse of the term of his engagement, is not legally sustainable and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside," the bench said.

The court allowed the state government's appeal and set aside the High Court's order. However, it directed the state government to pay compensation of Rs 5 lakh within three months to the respondent.

Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors Vs Dilip Kumar Mohapatra