Contractual Employee’s Discharge Stands: Madras HC Rejects Reinstatement Plea, Citing No Sanctioned Post

The petitioner challenged the fifth respondent’s order dated 3 November 2021, which discharged him from service, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

He argued that the order was punitive because the respondents’ counter-affidavit referred to alleged instances of delinquency, and that he had not been afforded an opportunity.

The respondents maintained that the order was a discharge simpliciter and that the petitioner was a contractual employee.

The petitioner had not been appointed to a sanctioned post.

The Court applied the distinction between a discharge simpliciter and a punitive termination, assessing the character of the action by reference to the impugned order itself.

It also considered the petitioner’s employment status: he was a contractual employee and had not been appointed to a sanctioned post.

The judgment cites no statute, precedent, or separate legal test.

The Court found that the impugned order, on its face, merely discharged the petitioner and was therefore an order of discharge simpliciter.

References to alleged delinquencies in the counter-affidavit did not alter the character of the order.

The Court also noted that no serious contention had been raised concerning denial of natural justice and that the petitioner was a contractual employee holding no sanctioned post.

On those facts, it found no basis to interfere.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.