In a recent judgment on August 28, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that when the termination of a contractual appointment carries a stigma, the principles of natural justice must be observed.
The Court further clarified that an appointment made on a contract basis, even if following a request for compassionate appointment, does not automatically qualify as an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.
“The mere fact that the respondent was appointed on a contractual basis pursuant to the application for compassionate appointment would not make his appointment one under the Dying in Harness Rules,” held the Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal.
In this case, Brijesh Kumar, through his mother, initially applied for a compassionate appointment with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). However, the department did not respond.
Later, another application was submitted under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. In response, Kumar was notified that the corporation had decided to appoint him as a contract conductor on a preferential basis. During his tenure, he was found guilty on two separate occasions of carrying three passengers without tickets and, on another occasion, transporting 500 kg of extra luggage.
As a result of the misconduct, Brijesh Kumar’s services were terminated on January 30, 2016. In response, he filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the termination. He argued that his appointment was based on compassionate grounds, making his employment permanent, and therefore, his services could not be terminated without a disciplinary inquiry. The High Court ruled in his favor, leading the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) to challenge this decision before the Supreme Court.
The Division Bench observed that instead of being appointed on compassionate grounds, the respondent was offered a position under a policy that provided preferential treatment for appointing dependents of deceased employees on a contractual basis. This offer was not only accepted by the respondent but also formalized with his signature.
“Despite repeated inquiries, no evidence was presented by the respondent to prove that he was, in fact, appointed on compassionate grounds. The respondent knowingly accepted the offer of contractual employment and signed the agreement, which is undisputed. Therefore, his appointment was purely contractual and cannot be considered permanent,” the Court stated.
In light of these considerations, the Court set aside the impugned order, noting that the High Court had erred in its conclusions and had misinterpreted the material evidence on record.
However, the Court emphasized that the respondent’s services were terminated without providing him any opportunity to respond, and no show-cause notice was issued. This led the Court to stress the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice, even in cases of contractual appointments.
“The termination order, being stigmatic in nature, could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The respondent was not supplied with the termination order, and no show-cause notice appears to have been issued. Therefore, the termination of his services, even if contractual, due to alleged misconduct, was carried out without adhering to the principles of natural justice,” the Court observed.
Given these facts and circumstances, the Court found the termination order to be unsustainable and accordingly set it aside. At the same time, the Court clarified that the respondent’s appointment was indeed contractual in nature.
“The judgments and orders of the High Court dated 12.01.2018 and 12.09.2018 are set aside to the extent they hold the appointment to be on compassionate grounds under the Dying in Harness Rules and of a permanent nature. However, the quashing of the termination order is upheld,” the Court ruled.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa