State Treated Similarly Situated Persons Differently: SC Sets Aside Orissa HC Order Reinstating Computer Technician, Awards Him Compensation Of Rs 5 Lakh
The Supreme Court set aside an order granting reinstatement of a Computer Technician engaged on temporary basis but awarded him Rs 5 lakh as compensation after noticing that the State treated similarly situated persons differently which resulted in prolonged litigation.
The State had approached the Apex Court challenging the judgment of the Orissa High Court whereby the respondent- a Computer Technician at the College of Teacher Education was ordered to be reinstated.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Manoj Misra said, “In ordinary circumstances, the relief of compensation as was awarded by the Tribunal would have been sufficient. But here the State is held to have treated similarly situated persons differently which has resulted in unwarranted expectation and prolonged litigation.”
AOR Prakash Ranjan Nayak represented the Appellant while Advocate E.R. Kumar represented the Respondent.
By an office order issued in the year 2001 by the Director of Teacher Education & SCERT, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, the first respondent was engaged as Computer Technician at the College of Teacher Education, Balasore. The first respondent joined the office of the Principal of the College but later, his services were dispensed with by the Director.Aggrieved by the disengagement order, the first respondent filed an Original Application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench. The Tribunal took the view that since the first respondent was not appointed by following any procedure known to law for appointment to a public post, and the engagement was for a fixed term, the only relief which could be granted to him is pay and allowances from the date of his disengagement (i.e. January 22,2002 till expiry of his original term of engagement (i.e. April 30,2002).
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the first respondent invoked jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court and his reinstatement was ordered.Aggrieved by this order the State was before the Apex Court.
It was the case of the Appellant that the order of engagement specified that it was purely temporary in nature and in such circumstances, as the order of disengagement was non-stigmatic.However, it was the Respondent’s case that the the stand taken by the appellant-State that due to less work, the services of the first respondent were dispensed with had no basis, in as much as similarly situated persons, whose services were dispensed with in a similar manner, were given the benefit of reinstatement.
The Bench took notice of the undisputed fact that the engagement of the first respondent was purely temporary to help in operation of computer system made available to the College under UGC Development Grant and that too for a fixed term of one year or till regular selection is made, whichever was earlier. There was also no material to demonstrate that the first respondent was engaged/ appointed against a pre-existing or freshly created substantive vacancy and his engagement/ appointment was made by following a procedure prescribed by statutory rules or executive instructions.
It was also observed by the Bench that the Tribunal had returned a finding that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that appointment was made by following any known procedure for appointment to a public post. The High Court, however, granted relief of reinstatement/re-engagement. “This, in our view, was not legally correct because the High Court ought to have examined Tribunal’s order qua first respondent on its own merit, particularly when the High Court was not bound by Tribunal’s order. Besides that, the State cannot be forced to suffer an order which is not sound in law”, the Bench said.
The Court further held that the direction of the High Court to reinstate / re engage the first respondent, particularly after lapse of the term of his engagement,was not legally sustainable. “No doubt, an attempt is there on part of the State to distinguish the case of the first respondent with those in whose favour Tribunal’s order was there, but details of those distinguishing features have not been brought to our notice during the course of hearing”, it added.
Thus, awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the first respondent as full and final settlement of all claims against the appellant, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s Order.
Cause Title: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Dilip Kumar Mohapatra [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 954]
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Advocates Debasis Jena, Animesh Dubey
Respondents: Advocates E.R. Kumar, D.P Mohanty, Swati Bhardwaj, Abhishek Thakral, Apurba Pattanayak, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co.
