Termination of Temporary Employment and Service Continuity: Supreme Court's Ruling in UP Government Case

The case of State of U.P. vs. Meraj Ahmad deals with the legality of terminating a temporary government employee due to criminal allegations and the subsequent claim for service continuity after acquittal. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Uttar Pradesh, overturning the decisions of the High Court that had granted continuity of service to the respondent.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Meraj Ahmad, was appointed as a temporary Livestock Development Assistant in Uttar Pradesh on July 8, 1983. His appointment order stated that his services could be terminated with one month’s notice. On April 2, 1984, an FIR was lodged against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. Following this, his employment was terminated on April 9, 1984.

In October 1985, the respondent was acquitted of the murder charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, who gave him the benefit of the doubt. After his acquittal, on February 7, 1989, he sought fresh appointment as a Livestock Development Assistant, explicitly stating that he would not claim continuity of service. The Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry, Faizabad, appointed him to the post of Livestock Extension Inspector on April 17, 1989, with the condition that he would not be entitled to any past service benefits.

Despite this, the respondent filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 8550 of 1987) in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, seeking reinstatement. On September 4, 1998, a Single Judge directed that he should be reinstated if his termination was solely due to the criminal charges and there was no other impediment.

The respondent later filed another writ petition (W.P. (S/S) No. 5499 of 1999), seeking continuity of service. The Single Judge ruled in his favor on May 14, 2013, setting aside his termination and granting continuity of service without back wages. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision in a Special Appeal on May 18, 2016.

The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The State contended that the High Court erred in granting service continuity when the respondent had voluntarily given up any claim to his past service at the time of reappointment.
It was argued that since his initial appointment was purely temporary, his termination did not require an elaborate procedure.
The petitioner emphasized that the respondent’s application for fresh appointment in 1989 was made with full knowledge that he would not be entitled to past service benefits.
The State asserted that allowing such claims could create a precedent where temporary employees terminated due to criminal allegations could claim continuity even after accepting fresh appointments.

Arguments of the Respondent (Meraj Ahmad)

The respondent argued that his termination was solely based on the criminal charges, and since he had been acquitted, he should have been reinstated with full service benefits.
He contended that the government acted arbitrarily in terminating him and later reappointing him under a new designation.
It was submitted that despite his voluntary statement in 1989, he should not be denied service continuity, as the termination itself was unfair.
The respondent relied on the High Court’s reasoning that termination based on criminal allegations should be reversed once an acquittal is secured.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the facts and legal principles surrounding temporary employment and service continuity. The Court found that:

The respondent was initially appointed on a temporary basis, meaning his services could be terminated without the protections available to permanent employees.
The termination order was issued a week after the registration of the FIR, making it clear that the action was linked to the criminal case.
The respondent’s acquittal was based on the benefit of the doubt, which does not automatically confer the right to reinstatement.
By explicitly stating in 1989 that he would not claim past service benefits, the respondent had legally waived his right to continuity.

The Court observed:

“The learned Single Judge was manifestly in error in entertaining a challenge to the order of termination dated 9 April 1984. Such a challenge was not open to the respondent and could not have been entertained once he had accepted his termination and sought fresh appointment on 7 February 1989 by undertaking to give up any claim in connection with his past service.”

The Court further noted that the Division Bench erred in affirming the Single Judge’s order without considering the respondent’s voluntary acceptance of fresh appointment under new terms.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Uttar Pradesh, stating:

The judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court were set aside.
The respondent was not entitled to continuity of service from April 9, 1984, the date of his termination.
The appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

Conclusion

This ruling reaffirms the principle that temporary employees do not have an automatic right to reinstatement after termination, especially when they voluntarily accept fresh appointments under different terms. The judgment also underscores that service continuity cannot be claimed retrospectively when an employee explicitly waives such rights. By overturning the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court clarified the legal position regarding employment termination and subsequent reinstatement in government service.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Uttar Prade vs Meraj Ahmad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-09-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category