No Negative Equality Under Article 14 for Reinstatement of Temporary Employees: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India set aside the Orissa High Court’s order reinstating a temporary employee terminated by the state government. The bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra upheld the principles governing temporary employment, emphasizing that such engagements do not confer rights akin to regular employment. However, the Court awarded the respondent ₹5 lakhs as compensation, noting procedural irregularities and prolonged litigation.

The respondent, Dilip Kumar Mohapatra, was engaged as a Computer Technician at the College of Teacher Education, Balasore, under an office order dated April 23, 2001. The appointment, as per the terms, was purely temporary, limited to one year or until the post was filled through regular recruitment, whichever was earlier.

On January 22, 2002, the respondent's services were terminated via a non-stigmatic termination order citing the redundancy of the role. Aggrieved, he approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, claiming that the termination violated principles of natural justice as no prior notice or opportunity to be heard was given.

The Tribunal held that the respondent's appointment did not follow any regular recruitment process, making his engagement non-permanent and irregular. The Tribunal refused reinstatement but awarded him salary for the unexpired term of his engagement, i.e., until April 30, 2002.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's decision before the Orissa High Court, which quashed the termination order and directed the respondent’s reinstatement with full service and financial benefits. The High Court reasoned that:

The termination violated principles of natural justice.

The state had reinstated similarly terminated employees following tribunal orders in O.A. Nos. 2242 of 2002 and 481 of 2008, and the respondent was entitled to similar treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The State of Odisha challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court. After examining the facts and arguments, the Court made the following key observations:

The Court reaffirmed the settled position in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), holding that temporary appointments, especially those not made through regular recruitment, do not create a right to permanent employment. The respondent's appointment was explicitly temporary and tied to the exigencies of a UGC grant, and therefore, reinstatement was unwarranted.

The respondent relied on parity with two similarly terminated employees who were reinstated based on tribunal orders. The Court rejected this argument, holding that:

Article 14 does not allow "negative equality," meaning one cannot claim equal treatment based on wrongful or erroneous decisions in other cases (State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) and State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma (2006)).

Mistaken or incorrect reinstatements of other employees cannot form the basis for claiming similar treatment.

The Court acknowledged that procedural fairness applies even in temporary appointments but only in a limited capacity. Since the termination was non-stigmatic and based on the nature of the appointment, the lack of a show-cause notice or hearing did not invalidate the order.

Given that the respondent’s engagement expired in April 2002, reinstatement would serve no purpose. The Court instead awarded ₹5 lakhs as compensation, recognizing:

Prolonged litigation spanning over two decades.

Unequal treatment by the state, which created an expectation of similar relief.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court’s order for reinstatement and instead directed the state to pay the respondent ₹5 lakhs as full and final settlement of all claims within three months.

Key Takeaways

Temporary Appointments Are Limited in Scope: The judgment reinforces the principle that temporary engagements, especially those not based on regular recruitment, do not confer permanent rights.

No Parity in Erroneous Decisions: The Court emphasized that mistaken decisions or administrative errors cannot set a legal precedent for others to claim parity under Article 14.

Compensation as Equitable Remedy: In cases where reinstatement is impractical, compensation can serve as an equitable and fair resolution.

This decision underscores the judiciary's balancing act between protecting employees' rights and upholding the principles of public employment. By rejecting reinstatement and awarding compensation, the Court avoided perpetuating irregular appointments while ensuring that the respondent was adequately compensated for procedural lapses and prolonged litigation.

Date of Decision: December 10, 2024