AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Lentin, J.—A temporary employee cannot be kept in suspended animation indefinitely. Such is the ratio of this judgment.
On 30th September 1978 the petitioner was appointed as a peon in a temporary capacity for a period of one year in Pancham Khemraj Mahavidyalaya whose Principal and President are Respondents 1 and 2 respectively. He was appointed for a period of one year with the stipulation that if his work was not found to be satisfactory, he could be relieved with one day''s notice. His services were terminated with effect from 31st March 1979. The petitioner was again appointed as a peon in a temporary capacity with effect from 22nd September 1979 with the stipulation that his services could be terminated at any time. The petitioner''s services were terminated with effect from 1st April 1980. The petitioner was again appointed in a temporary capacity as a peon in March 1981. It is not disputed that thereafter he throughout worked without break in service till 19th June 1986, when by the Principal''s letter dated 19th June 1986, his services were terminated from the afternoon of that day. That termination order was challenged by the petitioner before the College Tribunal. By its impugned judgment and order dated 9th January 1987, the College Tribunal upheld the petitioner''s termination inter alia on the ground that he was employed in merely a temporary capacity. Hence the present writ petition.
Though purportedly in a temporary capacity, indisputably the petitioner throughout worked as a peon without break in service right from March 1981 till 19th June 1986 when his services were abruptly terminated. This long spell of over five years of continuous service without break cannot mean that though the petitioner was initially employed in a temporary capacity, he continued to be in a temporary capacity indefinitely. The very fact that it was not thought necessary to dispense with the petitioner''s services for over 5 long years by itself indicates that his service during these years cannot be said to be merely temporary. A temporary employee cannot be kept in suspended animation indefinitely. It is unfair to an employee and an unwarranted privilege on an employer to keep an employee indefinitely in a temporary capacity and thereafter at his sweet will and pleasure and irrespective of the length of uninterrupted service put in, unceremoniously terminate the employment under the refuge that the employment was temporary. The length of uninterrupted service, as in this case, confers on the employee the mantle of permanency and not the eternal suspense of temporariness. It is in this light that the nature of the petitioner''s uninterrupted service for over five years from March 1981 till 19th June 1986 must be regarded, and it is but right and fitting that he must be accorded the dignity due to him of reinstatement.
Even though we did not have the benefit of the arguments of the learned advocate for Respondents 1 and 2, we were indeed fortunate to have had the benefit of the arguments of Mr. Satpute, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent, who took up cudgels on behalf of all the respondents. However, despite his habitual persuasiveness, Mr. Satpute was unable to persuade us to come to a view contrary to the one we have taken.
In the result, the impugned judgment and order of the College Tribunal must be set aside, which we hereby do. We direct that the petitioner be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service and full back wages and other amenities due to him under the rules.
Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs.