Read Judgment: K. RAGUPATHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
New Delhi, May 16, 2022: The Supreme Court has ordered the reinstatement of the appellant-employee to the post of Senior Scientific Officer in Gautam Buddha University, Uttar Pradesh and observed that the Annual Performance Assessment Report of the appellant showed his performance to be outstanding and excellent.
Stating that the employee’s services were discontinued on account of the allegation made against him by the Dean of the said University, the Division Bench of Justice L.Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R.Gavai asserted, “Since even according to the said University, though the employment was contractual but the employee was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee, we find that in the facts of the present case, the appellant’s services could not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice.”
The appellant, K. Ragupathi, was appointed as a Senior Scientific Officer on contractual basis in the said University.The said appointment was initially for a period of two years but his services were extended for another period of one year. However, by a communication dated August 12, 2014 he was informed that the period of his contractual appointment had expired on August 11, 2014 and he was directed to complete the formalities regarding relieving from the service. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court but his writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal was filed.
Referring to the selection process undertaken by the University, the Bench opined that even as per the University, though the appointment shows that it is on a contractual basis, for all the purposes, it is on a regular basis and so, the appellant’s terms and conditions are almost like a regular employee. It was also held that the appellant’s Annual Performance Assessment Report couldnot be a ground for non-continuation of the services of the appellant as his performance was shown to be outstanding and excellent in that report.
The Bench clarified that though the communication of the said University stated that the appellants contractual period had expired but the facts revealed that his services were discontinued on account of the allegation made against him by the Dean of the said University. Holding that the appellant was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee,the Division Bench allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be reinstated with continuity in service.