Allahabad HC Upholds 1995 Termination Of Temporary Junior Clerk Kept In Service 30 Years Under Interim Order, Bars Salary Recovery

The petitioner was appointed temporarily as a Junior Clerk at the Government Deaf and Dumb Girls School, Etawah, in 1991.

His appointment letter described his services as ad hoc/temporary and terminable; he was not formally confirmed.

In 1995, the State terminated his services on one month’s notice under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.

The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that he held a permanent post and was entitled to a hearing.

An interim order in 1995 required payment of salary, and he continued in service during the pendency of the writ petition.

Rule 2 of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 defines “temporary service” to include officiating or substantive service on a temporary post and officiating service on a permanent post.

Rule 4 of the U.P. State Government Servants Confirmation Rules, 1991 requires a formal confirmation order; absent such an order, the employee is not confirmed.

A temporary employee has no right to hold the post and, where termination is simpliciter under the applicable terms or rules, ordinarily has no entitlement to a hearing; the judgment referred to Ram Sudhar Prasad v. State of U.P. and Siya Ram v. State of U.P., among other authorities, in support of these principles.

Article 311(2) does not require a hearing where the termination is non-punitive and simpliciter.

The Court treated the petitioner’s appointment as an interim arrangement made to staff the newly established school pending regular appointments.

Although the post of Junior Clerk was permanent, the petitioner’s appointment remained ad hoc/temporary, and no formal confirmation order had been made.

The Court therefore characterised his service as officiating service on a permanent post within Rule 2 and held that the 1975 Rules applied.

Because the termination order was not punitive but was termination simpliciter under those Rules, Article 311(2) did not require a hearing.

The petitioner was deemed terminated from 29 September 1995; however, the respondents were restrained from recovering amounts paid to him pursuant to the interim order.