DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI versus JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 416 · Decided: 29-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2021] 10 S.C.R. 416
416
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI
v.
JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA HANDICAPPED
UNIVERSITY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6255 of 2021)
OCTOBER 29, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Illegal Termination – UGC under its Tenth Plan
issued grants to respondent-University including the grant for one
lecturer in the Dept. of Political Science – Appellant appointed to
the post of Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, however
was terminated later stating that the post was abolished – Writ petition
filed by appellant – Dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held:
Appointment of the appellant was not contractual in nature and he
was being paid annual increments also – But, since he protested
regarding the deduction of Rs.5,000 from his salary every month,
the increments were stopped and later, his services were also
terminated – UGC had directed the respondent to continue the Tenth
Plan as Eleventh plan – Thus, the post held by the appellant would
correspondingly continue even under the Eleventh Plan – There
was no abolition of the post held by the appellant nor was the
Department of Political Science abolished by the respondent –
Termination of the services of the appellant was illegal – Order of
the High Court set aside – Respondent to reinstate the appellant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On a consideration of the material on record,
the following inferences would arise:
 (a) The appointment of the appellant was not contractual
in nature and he was being paid annual increments also. But,
since he protested regarding the deduction of Rs.5,000 from his
salary every month, the increments were stopped and later, his
services were also terminated.
(b) Further, when a communication was addressed by the
Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University to the UGC for
sanctioning of grant for Eleventh Plan, there was no mention
regarding abolition of appellant’s post.
(c) There was also adequate strength of students for the
continuation of the Department of Political Science by the
University.
(d) The UGC had the funds to pay as grants for the post
even after the completion of the Tenth Five Year Plan insofar as
regular appointees are concerned and the appellant was one such
regular appointee who was appointed after following the requisite
procedure as prescribed under the Statutes of the University.
(e) The University, represented to the UGC on the one
hand held out that the post of Assistant professor had been
abolished while on the other hand, it also stated that the
Department of Political Science was being continued having
adequate strength of students.
(f) The UGC had directed the respondent-University to
continue the Tenth Plan as Eleventh plan. The post held by the
appellant would correspondingly continue even under the
Eleventh Plan.
(g) There was no abolition of the post held by the appellant
herein and nor was the Department of Political Science abolished
by the respondent-University.
(h) It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the UGC, while
reconsidering the representation of the appellant pursuant to the
direction issued by this Court recommended that the termination
of the services of the appellant was incorrect and therefore his
services be continued as has been so done in the case of similarly
placed appointees of the Tenth Plan. The UGC also recommended
that in case the Department of Political Science has been
abolished by the University then the appellant be absorbed in
the Social Science Faculty of the University.
(i) There has been no objection raised to the aforesaid
recommendation of the UGC and order of the respondent-
University. [Para 26][429-E-H; 430-A-F]
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA
HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
1.2 The termination of the services of the appellant was
illegal and not in accordance with law. The impugned order passed
by the High Court is set aside. The respondent-University to
reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor in the Department
of Political Science and also grant him the benefit of continuity of
services only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits, if
any. The appellant will however, not be entitled to any
disbursement of salary for the period from 31st March, 2007, till
the date of reinstatement as he has not worked for the said period
on the principle of “no work, no pay”. The appellant is, however,
entitled t

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