Supreme Court clarifies rights of temporary employees in State of Odisha vs. Dilip Kumar Mohapatra (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 954

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Manoj Misra, J.

Can a temporary employee claim reinstatement if their services are terminated, especially if others in similar situations have been reinstated? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a computer technician in Odisha. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in ordering reinstatement, considering the temporary nature of the employment and the principles of equal treatment. This judgment clarifies the extent of rights available to temporary employees and the limits of judicial intervention in such matters. This case was decided by a two-judge bench, with the opinion authored by Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

On April 23, 2001, the Director of Teacher Education & SCERT, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, engaged Dilip Kumar Mohapatra as a Computer Technician at the College of Teacher Education, Balasore. His engagement was on a temporary basis for one year, or until the post was filled regularly, with effect from the date he joined his assignment. The engagement was specifically to operate the computer system available to the college under a University Grants Commission (UGC) Development grant. Mr. Mohapatra joined his duties on May 1, 2001. However, his services were terminated on January 22, 2002, by the Director without any prior notice or explanation.

Aggrieved by this termination, Mr. Mohapatra filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, arguing that the termination violated the principles of natural justice and lacked any stated reasons. The State of Odisha contested the claim, asserting that the engagement was temporary and for a fixed term, and that the work pressure had lessened, justifying the disengagement. The Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Mohapatra, stating that he was entitled to pay and allowances from the date of his disengagement until the original term of his engagement expired. Dissatisfied with this order, Mr. Mohapatra appealed to the Orissa High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Orissa Administrative Tribunal initially ruled that since Mr. Mohapatra was not appointed through a regular process and his engagement was for a fixed term, he was only entitled to pay and allowances for the remainder of his term. The Tribunal did not order reinstatement. Mr. Mohapatra then appealed to the Orissa High Court. The High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, ordering Mr. Mohapatra’s reinstatement with all service and financial benefits. The High Court noted that Mr. Mohapatra was terminated without a show-cause notice or a hearing, violating natural justice principles. Furthermore, the High Court observed that similarly situated individuals had been reinstated and regularized following orders from the Tribunal in other cases. The State of Odisha then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of principles of natural justice, the rights of temporary employees, and the scope of judicial review in service matters. The High Court invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which grant it the power to issue writs and exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals. The Supreme Court also referred to its previous judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1], which cautioned against the regularization of temporary employees unless their initial recruitment was done regularly and in accordance with the constitutional scheme. The court also considered the concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, as discussed in State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati [(2019) 19 SCC 626] and State of U.P. & Ors. v. Rajkumar Sharma & Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 330], which states that if a person has no right, they cannot claim rights to be treated equally.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant (State of Odisha):

• The engagement of Mr. Mohapatra was temporary and for a fixed term. The order of disengagement was non-stigmatic, and therefore, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
• The reinstatement of similarly situated persons in other cases should not be a ground to allow Mr. Mohapatra’s writ petition, especially when the Tribunal’s order was not illegal.
• Since Mr. Mohapatra’s appointment was without following any prescribed procedure, the High Court should not have interfered.
• Even if the disengagement before the term’s expiry was illegal, the appropriate relief should have been compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent (Dilip Kumar Mohapatra):

• The disengagement was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice because no reasons were given.
• The State’s claim of less work was baseless, as similarly situated persons were reinstated.
• The State cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees; hence, the High Court was correct in directing reinstatement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in ordering the reinstatement of the respondent, given that his engagement was temporary and for a fixed term.
2. Whether the reinstatement of similarly situated individuals in other cases could be a valid ground for ordering the reinstatement of the respondent.
3. Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order of the Tribunal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1]* which cautioned against the regularization of temporary employees unless the initial recruitment was regular and constitutional.
• The Supreme Court followed State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati [(2019) 19 SCC 626]* which reiterated that there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court followed State of U.P. & Ors. v. Rajkumar Sharma & Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 330]* which held that mistakes in appointments do not confer rights on others and the State cannot be forced to perpetuate mistakes.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the temporary nature of the respondent’s employment and the absence of a regular appointment process. The court emphasized that temporary engagements, especially those made without following established procedures, do not confer a right to claim regularization or reinstatement. The court also highlighted the principle of negative equality, stating that if a person’s initial appointment was not regular, they cannot claim equal treatment based on the irregular appointments of others. The court aimed to strike a balance between the rights of employees and the need to uphold the rule of law in public employment.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s direction to reinstate the respondent was not legally sustainable. The court noted that the engagement was purely temporary and for a fixed term, and the respondent’s appointment was not made through a regular process. The court emphasized that the Tribunal’s order was correct in awarding compensation for the remaining period of the term. The court also clarified that the principle of negative equality does not apply when the initial appointment was not regular.

The Court stated, “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.”

The Court further observed, “In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in only granting compensation to the first respondent for the remaining period of his term.”

The Court also noted, “In case the person has a right, he has to be treated equally, but where right is not available a person cannot claim rights to be treated equally as the right does not exist, negative equality when the right does not exist, cannot be claimed.”

The court considered the fact that the State had treated similarly situated persons differently, leading to unwarranted expectations and prolonged litigation. Therefore, instead of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent as a full and final settlement.

Key Takeaways

• Temporary employees engaged for a fixed term without a regular appointment process do not have an automatic right to reinstatement upon termination.
• The principle of negative equality does not apply when the initial appointment was not regular.
• Courts should be cautious in ordering reinstatement of temporary employees, especially after the expiry of their term.
• Compensation may be an appropriate remedy in cases of wrongful disengagement of temporary employees.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Odisha to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to Dilip Kumar Mohapatra within three months from the date of the judgment. This amount is to be considered a full and final settlement of all claims against the State.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that temporary employees engaged for a fixed term without a regular appointment process do not have an automatic right to reinstatement upon termination, and the principle of negative equality does not apply in such cases. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Umadevi, clarifying that temporary engagements do not create a right to regularization or reinstatement unless the initial recruitment was regular and constitutional. It also highlights the limits of judicial intervention in service matters involving temporary employees and emphasizes the importance of following established procedures for public employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Odisha vs. Dilip Kumar Mohapatra clarifies the rights of temporary employees, emphasizing that temporary engagements do not automatically entitle employees to reinstatement upon termination, especially if the initial appointment was not through a regular process. The court set aside the High Court’s order for reinstatement, holding that the Tribunal’s decision to award compensation for the remaining term was legally sound. The court also reinforced the principle of negative equality, stating that if a person has no right, they cannot claim equal treatment based on the irregular appointments of others. The Supreme Court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to Mr. Mohapatra, acknowledging the prolonged litigation and the State’s differential treatment of similarly situated persons.