SANTOKH SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed as wholetime Dispenser for Government College, Chandigarh by an order dated 5.08.1960 on a fixed pay of Rs. 100.00 per month with effect from 1.08.1960. The order says that the appellant's services were on a purely temporary basis and the salary of the appellant was charged out of the health fund of the College. By a subsequent order dated 2.02.1983 the fixed pay of the appellant was refixed at Rs. 620.00 per month. Thereafter, his services were terminated by an order dated 28.02.1994 with effect from 20.02.1994. At the relevant time the appellant was working in the pay scale of Rs. 510-940 (out of public funds). No reason has been assigned in the termination order. It would, therefore, appear that this is a case of termination simpliciter.

(2.) The appellant had taken the grievances before CAT which ended in dismissal on the ground that since the appellant was not holding any civil post the petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court which was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.

(3.) We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant was appointed on a contingent purely on temporary basis. It would indicate that the services of the appellant can be terminated by resorting to termination simpliciter. However, in the instant case, may be on temporary basis the respondents allowed the appellant to continue for about 34 years before his services were done away by an impugned order. In the meantime, the appellant had attained the age of superannuation on 5.06.2002. Therefore, the prayers of the appellant that he may be reinstated and he should be provided with pensionary benefits are not tenable. While it is true that the services of the appellant were purely on temporary basis throughout 34 years of service, we cannot also overlook the fact that the respondents allowed him to continue for about 34 years and ultimately did away his services by an impugned order. Legally speaking, the appellant would not have any enforceable right but the facts of this case as recited above deserve a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian grounds.