Termination of a contractual employee, especially when stigmatic, requires compliance with natural justice.

The applicant was appointed as a Sanitary Inspector in the Health and Medical Education Department under Government Order No. 229-NG/2006 dated 29 January 2006, pursuant to the Jammu & Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003. He joined at the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Baramulla, and claimed to have completed seven years of contractual service on 9 January 2013.

The applicant asserted that, under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 and the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2011, his case was required to be considered for regularization after completion of the prescribed period. While his case was allegedly pending, the respondents terminated his engagement by Order No. 284/NG of 2013 dated 16 May 2013, treating him as a contractual employee and alleging unauthorized absence from duty.

The respondents contended that the applicant had been absent from 13 March 2013 and had been arrested in connection with FIR No. 51/2013 under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities Act. They argued that his contractual engagement conferred no right to regularization or reinstatement and that no departmental enquiry was necessary before terminating a temporary contractual engagement.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents disclosed that the post of Sanitary Inspector had been substantively filled with effect from 16 April 2018 pursuant to the recommendation of the J&K Services Selection Board. The applicant further submitted that he had been acquitted in the criminal case by judgment dated 7 December 2021.

Whether the applicant’s contractual engagement could be terminated on the ground of alleged unauthorized absence without notice, hearing, or an enquiry, particularly where the termination order was stigmatic?

Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration for regularization, reinstatement, or continuation under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 and the Amendment Ordinance, 2011, after completing seven years of contractual service?

Whether, in view of the post having subsequently been filled on a substantive basis and the applicant’s advanced age and prolonged litigation, quashing the termination order would serve any effective purpose?

The Tribunal considered the Jammu & Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, under which the applicant had initially been engaged, and the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 and the Amendment Ordinance, 2011, which provided for consideration of eligible ad hoc, contractual, or consolidated employees for regularization upon fulfilment of prescribed conditions.

The Tribunal applied the principle of natural justice that even a contractual employee cannot be disengaged through a stigmatic order without a fair opportunity of hearing. It relied on Bachitrananda Barik v. State of Orissa & Ors., and Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, AIR 1965 SC 1767, for the proposition that the exercise of power affecting a person’s rights must conform to natural justice and ordinarily requires an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal also noted the reasoning in Feroz Ahmad Sheikh & Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors., concerning compliance with natural justice in cases involving stigmatic termination of contractual appointees.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ broad contention that contractual status eliminated the requirement to follow procedural fairness. Since the impugned order terminated the applicant on the stigmatic ground of unauthorized absence, the respondents were required to provide notice and an opportunity of hearing before disengagement.

The termination order, having been issued without such safeguards, was therefore legally vulnerable under the principles of natural justice.

However, the Tribunal did not grant reinstatement or quash the order because the original post had already been filled substantively from 16 April 2018, and the applicant had by then reached approximately 56 years of age after nearly 13 years of litigation. In those circumstances, setting aside the termination order would not produce any practical or meaningful relief.

The Tribunal accordingly refrained from conclusively granting regularization or reinstatement and moulded the relief on the basis of the peculiar facts of the case.

Nevertheless, it declined to quash the termination order or direct reinstatement because the post had already been filled on a substantive basis and such relief would serve no practical purpose.

The T.A. was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to explore, subject to the applicant’s eligibility, the possibility of engaging him on a stop-gap basis under any departmental scheme carrying at least an honorarium, having regard to his prolonged litigation and acquittal in the criminal case.

The Tribunal expressly stated that the direction was confined to the peculiar facts of the case and would not operate as a binding precedent in other matters.