K. ALEX versus DELHI STATE MINERAL DEV. CORPN.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 23-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,1 
(2008] 13 S.C.R. 945 
K. ALEX 
A 
v. 
DELHI STATE MINERAL DEV. CORPN. 
(Civil Appeal No.5797 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJlT SINGH -BEDI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Re-deployment of retrenched employees - Policy of, c 
adopted by employer-Corporation - Appellant, one such re-
trenched employee - Employer implemented its re-deploy-
ment policy in case of all retrenched employees exceptAp-
pellant - Services of Appellant were terminated - Held: Ter-
mination was arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of 
right to equality - Reasoning that Appellant was junior-most D 
cannot be accepted - Even otherwise, Appellant was not a 
temporary employee and the employer could not have termi-
nated him by resorting to the Temporary Service Rules - Di-
rection to employer to reinstate Appellant with immediate ef-
feet - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 E 
- r. 5 - Staff Service Rules of OS/DC, 1978 - r.3. 
The Respondent-Corporation had retrenched some 
of its employees including Appellant. Pursuant to a policy 
decision, it issued a list of such retrenched employees 
F 
for re-deployment in Delhi Administration or undertakings/ 
corporations under the control of Delhi Administration. In 
· the said list, the name of App_ellant appeared at serial No. 
48. However, the Corporation, instead of re-deploying 
Appellant as per the policy abovementioned, terminated 
his services under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central G 
·civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with 
• 
Rule -'1 (ii) of the Staff Service Rules of DSIDC, 1978 . 
Appellant filed writ petition challenging his order of 
945 
H 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13S.C.R. 
A termination as illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The High Court, 
while holding that the termination of Appellant by treating 
him as a temporary employee was not proper, dismissed 
the writ petition on the ground that on abolition of post, 
the Appellant had no right to continue in service and thus 
B affirmed the order of termination passed against him. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal were as to i) whether it was arbitrary and 
illegal on the part of the Corporation not to implement its 
c 
re-deployment policy in the case of the appellant, even 
though his name appeared at Serial No.48 in the list of 
retrenched employees to be redeployed and when all but 
the appellant were re-deployed and that in any event ii) 
whether the services of Appellant could not be terminated 
under Rule 5 of the CCS rules, since he was a regular 
D employee. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.When the services of an employee are ter-
minated on closure of a project or for some other reason, 
E the employee cannot seek re-employment in some other 
organization as of right. But the present case is not so 
much about the appellant's right to hold the post on abo-
lition of post but about the appellant's right to claim re-
deployment in terms of the policy of the Corporation par-
F ticularly when the policy was implemented in respect of 
all the other employees who were retrenched and simi-
larly placed. [Para 11) [952,F-G] 
2.1. Out of the list of 275 retrenched employees, only 
the services of the appellant were terminated. Therefore, 
G it is difficult to conceive how in the single case of the ap-
pellant only, his services could not be restored. This is 
discriminatory in nature and violative of the right to equal-
ity. The explanation offered viz., that the appellant was 
~ 
junior most cannot be accepted. In any view of the matter 
H and considering this long course of time, a single post 
K. ALEX v. DELHI STATE MINERAL DEV. . 
947 
CORPN. 
has certainly fallen vacant where the appellant can very· A 
well be accommodated. [Para 12] [952,H; 953,A-B] 
2.2. Also all ·the persons, whose names were men-
tioned in the list of_ retrenched employees to be rede-
ployed, were absorbed either in Delhi Administration or 
any other undertakings/ corporations under the control 
8 
of Delhi Administration while some of them were retained 
in the Corporation itself. It is only the appellant who was 
left out. This action on the part of the Corporation, there-
fore, cannot be accepted and accordingly, arbitrary and 
illegal. [Para 13] [953,D-E] 
C 
· 3. There is another aspect of this matter. The services 
of the appellant were regularized by an Offi~e Order dated 
23rd of January, · 1989 with effect from the date of his ap-
poi

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