Unauthorized absence exceeding fifteen days validly triggers termination of contractual engagement.

The petitioner was engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak (Junior Teacher) on a contractual basis for one year from 24 April 2018, on a fixed honorarium of ₹7,400 per month, under an agreement containing conditions regarding attendance and termination.

He remained absent from duty from 6 July 2022 to 20 November 2022, allegedly due to ophthalmic illness and treatment, including an eye operation at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack.

He rejoined on 21 November 2022. Although the Headmaster intimated his rejoining and forwarded his salary bill, the District Education Officer-cum-DPC disengaged him on 21 December 2022 on the ground of unauthorised continuous absence.

The petitioner had received a show-cause notice dated 30 August 2022 and submitted a reply referring to his illness, but had neither obtained prior leave nor sought post facto regularisation of the absence.

His earlier writ petition resulted in a direction to the Collector to decide his challenge; the Collector subsequently confirmed the disengagement on 27 February 2025.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner’s disengagement for unauthorised continuous absence, in terms of the contractual conditions of engagement, was arbitrary, illegal, or violative of the principles of natural justice.

Whether the petitioner’s medical condition and the authorities’ delay in issuing the disengagement order warranted interference with the impugned orders or any humanitarian relief.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of honorarium for the period during which he rejoined and actually discharged duty.

Clause 15 of the agreement permitted 12 days’ casual leave during an academic year and provided that unauthorised absence for a continuous period of 15 days would automatically terminate the engagement, in accordance with Circular No. 12689/F dated 23 June 2012.

Clause 7 required regularity and punctuality in attending school.

The Court also applied the principle of natural justice, holding that a disengagement decision is not vitiated where the employee was issued a show-cause notice and given an opportunity to explain.

As the engagement was purely contractual, the petitioner’s rights were governed primarily by the terms of the executed agreement.

The Court additionally recognised the State’s obligation to consider compassionate or humanitarian circumstances, while distinguishing such consideration from a legal entitlement to continuation in a contractual post.

The Court found that the petitioner’s absence from 6 July to 20 November 2022 was undisputed and exceeded the 15-day threshold prescribed in Clause 15.

Although the petitioner produced medical documents and had explained his illness in response to the show-cause notice, he had not obtained prior permission or applied for post facto leave or regularisation after rejoining.

Consequently, the absence remained unauthorised and triggered the contractual consequence of disengagement.

Since a show-cause notice had been issued and the petitioner had submitted a reply, the Court held that the principles of natural justice had been complied with.

The Court noted that the authority had delayed action despite being aware of the absence and issued the disengagement order when the salary bill was forwarded; however, this circumstance did not invalidate the contractual disengagement, particularly in view of the petitioner’s failure to seek regularisation.

Nevertheless, because the petitioner had actually resumed duty and worked from 21 to 22 November 2022, the Court considered that he should receive honorarium for that period.

On humanitarian grounds, it also directed consideration of fresh engagement under any prevailing scheme for which he might be qualified.

The orders of disengagement and the Collector’s confirming order were therefore upheld.

However, the authorities were directed to pay the petitioner his fixed honorarium for the period from 21 to 22 November 2022, when he had actually discharged duty.

The Court further directed Opposite Party No. 4 to consider the petitioner for fresh engagement, subject to his suitability and qualification under any prevailing scheme, preferably within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.