SHYAM LAL ARYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question of law of substantial and general importance that has been referred for consideration by a Full Bench in this writ petition, R.S.A. Nos. 542, 2862 and 2864 of 1986 and LPA No. 892 of 1984, is whether the order dispensing with the services of a government employee simpliciter (whether on ad hoc or temporary basis), in accordance with the contract of employment, would be ipso facto arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, if his juniors are retained.

(2.) Before advering directly to the question posed, it would be apt to examine the status, nature and tenure of a temporary government servant. This matter has been the subject-matter of a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court as also of various High Courts. As far back as in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India,1988 SCR 828, it was held that a temporary Government servant had no right to hold the post and his services were liable to be terminated at any time, either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of his service. However, in case the order of termination was punitive in nature and was in the nature of a punishment sought to be imposed, then the provisions and procedure set out in Article 311 of the Constitution would have to be followed, but where the services were sought to be terminated in terms of the contract of service or the relevant rules, the provisions of the said Article were not required to be complied with, as such an order did not involve any evil consequences on the employee. The evil consequences visualised in Parshotam Lal Dhingra's case, did not include the termination of the services of a temporary government employee in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service. The view taken by the Constitution Bench in Parshotam Lal Dhingra's case was reiterated in The State of Orissa and another v. Ram. Narayan Das, 1961 1 SCR 606, R.C. Lacy v. The State of Bihar, C.A. No. 590 of 1962 decided on 23.10.1963, Champaklal Chaimanlal Shah v. The Union of India, 1964 5 SCR 190, Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India, 1964 AIR(SC) 449, A.G. Benjamin v. Union of India, CA No. 1341 of 1966, Shamsher Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1975 1 SCR 814, State of Punjab and another v. Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur, 1968 3 SCR 234, and State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 1 SCT 760.

(3.) The question which has been posed before this Bench was earlier posed before another Full Bench in Y.K. Bhatia v. The State of Haryana, 1977 1 ILR(P&H) 96. The Full Bench after examining the position of law, as emerging from the various judgments of the Supreme Court, came to the following conclusions :-