Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Provisional Employee: Kamlesh vs. Union of India (20 January 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 21

Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a temporary employee demand a permanent job simply because they’ve worked for a long time? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving a provisional Extra Departmental Employee (EDE) of the postal department. The court ultimately ruled that a provisional employee cannot claim regularization based solely on the length of their service. This judgment clarifies the rights of temporary employees and the conditions under which their services can be terminated. The bench comprised Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Case Background

The appellant, Kamlesh, was provisionally appointed as an Extra Departmental Employee (EDE) at the Pooth Kalan Post Office on 13th July 1992. The appointment order clearly stated that it was a provisional appointment and would be terminated when a regular appointment was made. It also stated that the appellant would have no claim for appointment to any post and that the provisional appointment could be terminated at any time without notice or reason.

Despite the provisional nature of her appointment, Kamlesh continued to work. She later sought regularization of her services, claiming benefits of seniority based on an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 05.02.2003. Her representation for regularization was rejected on 28.04.2003. She challenged this rejection before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 07.05.2004. Subsequently, her services were discontinued on 20.05.2004.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Kamlesh initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization of her services, which was rejected. She then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, challenging the Tribunal’s order. The High Court dismissed her writ petition on 08.07.2004 and also dismissed her review petition on 03.12.2004. Subsequently, she filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 28.03.2008, with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate reliefs. Following this, she filed a miscellaneous application in the High Court, which was also dismissed. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework in this case revolves around the terms of the appointment of the appellant as an Extra Departmental Employee (EDE). The appointment order, dated 13.07.1992, stated:

“The undersigned also reserves the right to terminate the provisional appointment at any time before the period mentioned in para 1 above without notice and without assigning any reason thereof.”

The order also specified that the appellant would be governed by the EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964. The key issue is whether the appellant, despite her provisional appointment, could claim regularization due to her prolonged service. The Supreme Court had to interpret the terms of the appointment order in light of the existing service rules and principles of service law.

Arguments

The appellant argued that she should be regularized due to her long service as EDE. She contended that her initial appointment was made on 30.03.1992, and she had been working since then. She also claimed that the statement made by the respondent’s counsel in the High Court that regular incumbents had replaced her was incorrect. She relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act to support her claim that no regular appointments had been made.

The respondents argued that the appellant’s appointment was explicitly provisional and that the appointment order clearly stated that it could be terminated at any time without notice or reason. They contended that the appellant was not entitled to regularization as her appointment was not against a sanctioned post and that she was fully aware of the terms of her employment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the appellant, who was provisionally appointed as an Extra Departmental Employee (EDE), could claim regularization of her services based on prolonged service, despite the explicit terms of her provisional appointment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or legal provisions in its judgment. However, the court did refer to the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, which had previously considered the matter. The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the appointment order and the principles of service law.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Central Administrative Tribunal’s order was approved, as it had correctly held that the appellant was not entitled to regularization. The High Court’s orders were followed, as they had also dismissed the appellant’s claims.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear and unambiguous terms of the appellant’s appointment order. The order explicitly stated that the appointment was provisional and could be terminated at any time without notice. The court emphasized that the appellant was fully aware of these terms and that prolonged service does not automatically confer a right to regularization. The court also noted that the appellant’s appointment was not against a sanctioned post, which further weakened her claim for regularization.

Fact:Law

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal interpretation of the appointment order and the principles of service law, with less emphasis on the specific factual circumstances of the case. The court focused on the legal principle that a provisional employee cannot claim regularization solely based on the length of their service.

The court stated: “It is clear from the order of appointment of the appellant that she was provisionally appointed to the post of EDE.”

The court further noted: “It was clarified in the appointment order itself that the provisional appointment will be terminated when regular appointment is made and that she shall have no claim for appointment to any post.”

Finally, the court observed: “The Tribunal has dismissed her claim for regularization by holding that she was not entitled to regularization of her service.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A provisional employee cannot claim regularization of services solely based on the length of their service.
• ✓ The terms of the appointment order are crucial in determining the rights and obligations of the employee.
• ✓ An appointment made on a provisional basis can be terminated without notice or reason, as specified in the appointment order.
• ✓ This decision clarifies the legal position of provisional employees and their limited rights regarding regularization.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall be permitted to continue to hold the post of EDE till a regular appointment is made to the said post. However, she was not entitled to any back wages.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a provisionally appointed employee cannot claim regularization of service merely based on the length of service, especially when the appointment order clearly states the provisional nature of the employment and the possibility of termination without notice. This judgment reinforces the existing position of law regarding provisional employees and their limited rights to regularization.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The court ruled that Kamlesh, who was provisionally appointed as an Extra Departmental Employee, could not claim regularization of her services based on prolonged service. The court emphasized that the terms of her appointment were clear and that she was not entitled to regularization. However, the court allowed her to continue in her post until a regular appointment was made, without any back wages.