APSRTC & ORS. versus SRI A. SANJEEV REDDY

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 07-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
APSRTC & ORS.
v.
SRI A. SANJEEV REDDY
(Civil Appeal No. 12247 of 2018)
DECEMBER 07, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law – Termination – Plea of continuity of service
with consequential benefits – Respondent was appointed as a
contract conductor in the appellant-corporation – He was subjected
to a departmental enquiry, after which he was terminated –
Respondent preferred departmental appeal, which was dismissed –
However in departmental review, order for the re-engagement of
the respondent on contract was issued – After his re-engagement,
respondent filed writ petition and pleaded for continuity of service
with consequential service benefits – Single Judge of the High Court
considering the earlier decision dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition
No.2786 of 2012, disposed of the writ petition filed by the
respondent and directed the appellant to extend the benefit of
continuity of service to him from the date of termination until the
date of his re-engagement except for the period during which he
was absent – Direction was confirmed by the Division Bench of the
High Court – On appeal, held: In instant case, respondent did not
assail either the termination of his services following the enquiry
or the fresh appointment – He only sought benefit of continuity of
service from the date of the earlier termination until the date of his
re-engagement – Grant of continuity by the Single Judge was not
sustainable unless the order of termination and/or the fresh
appointment were challenged and adjudicated upon, seniority would
necessarily have to count with effect from the date of the fresh
appointment – As a matter of principle, continuity can be granted
when an order of termination is set aside, to ensure that there is no
hiatus in service – Thus, grant of continuity of service by the High
Court was manifestly misconceived.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  The order of the Single Judge of the High Court
in the present case, was exclusively based on the earlier decision
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 614
614
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
615
dated 29.02.2012 in writ petition no.2786 of 2012, the judgment
of the Single Judge indicates that the earlier case also dealt with
persons who were working as contract employees who were
appointed after a regular selection.  In some cases, termination
orders were passed without an enquiry on allegations of
misconduct while in other cases, an enquiry was conducted.
[Para 5] [618-C-D]
2.  In the present case, the workman did not choose to
assail either the termination of his services following the enquiry
or the fresh appointment.   All that was sought was that he should
have the benefit of continuity of service from the date of the earlier
termination until re-engagement. [Para 6] [619-E]
3.  Such a direction could not have been issued by the Single
Judge without the termination being put into question. The grant
of continuity was not sustainable for the simple reason that unless
the order of termination and/or the fresh appointment were
challenged and adjudicated upon, seniority would necessarily have
to count with effect from the date of the fresh appointment.  As a
matter of first principle, continuity can be granted when an order
of termination is set aside, to ensure that there is no hiatus in
service. [Para 7] [619-F]
4. There is another reason why the judgment of the High
Court cannot be sustained. It is common ground that the appellant
has recruited personnel like the present respondent on contract
after a regular process of selection.  Eventually, the contract
employees are to be regularised.  Granting continuity of service
to a person such as the respondent, who was found to have
committed misconduct, would place him on the same footing as
other contractual employees who have a record without blemish.
Hence, once a fresh appointment was given to the respondent
and neither the termination nor the fresh engagement was placed
in issue, the grant of continuity of service by the High Court was
manifestly misconceived. [Para 8] [619-G-H; 620-A]
5. The earlier order of the Single Judge dated 29.02.2012
was in a batch of cases, where termination orders were issued
without holding an enquiry in certain cases and after holding an
enquiry in others, though in violation of the principles of natural
justice.  It was in that view of the matter that the direction
APSRTC & ORS. v. SRI A. SANJEEV REDDY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.