2003 (2) TMI 554 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Affirms Legality of Termination Due to Temporary Status; Urges Govt to Address Pension and Benefits Claims Promptly.

Chanchal Goyal Versus State of Rajasthan

The SC upheld the Division Bench's decision, affirming the legality of the appellant's termination, as her temporary status did not grant her a right to ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of termination of the appellant's service.2. Applicability of the principle of legitimate expectation.3. Entitlement to gratuity and pension benefits.4. Consideration of voluntary retirement.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Termination of the Appellant's Service:The appellant was appointed on a temporary basis by the Local Self-Government Department, Government of Rajasthan, under the Municipal Council, Ganganagar, with the stipulation that her appointment would last for six months or until a candidate selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Service Commission) became available. Despite being selected by the Service Commission in 1976 and 1982, she did not join and continued through extensions granted by the Local Self-Government Department. Her services were terminated on 1.10.1988 when a Service Commission-selected candidate became available. The appellant challenged the termination, and the High Court initially stayed the termination and later ruled it illegal, directing regularization of her services. However, the Division Bench overturned this decision, stating she remained a temporary employee without the right to hold the post permanently.2. Applicability of the Principle of Legitimate Expectation:The appellant argued that her long tenure of 28 years, including 14 years post-termination due to interim orders, created a legitimate expectation of permanency. The court examined the principles of legitimate expectation, emphasizing that it arises when a benefit or advantage is expected to continue based on past actions or representations by the decision-maker. However, the court found no evidence that any authority had created an impression of waiving the original conditions of her temporary appointment. The court concluded that mere continuance did not imply waiver and that no legitimate expectation could be founded on such an unfounded impression.3. Entitlement to Gratuity and Pension Benefits:The appellant claimed entitlement to benefits under the Rajasthan Municipal Services (Pension) Rules, 1989, having participated in the provident fund, pension, and gratuity schemes. The court acknowledged her participation in these schemes but did not delve into the specifics of her entitlement, instead suggesting that the government consider her claims for benefits and voluntary retirement sympathetically and promptly.4. Consideration of Voluntary Retirement:The appellant had applied for voluntary retirement two years prior to the judgment, and no decision had been made. The court noted her long service and participation in benefit schemes, expressing the hope that the government would consider her application for voluntary retirement and the associated benefits in the proper perspective, uninfluenced by the dismissal of the appeal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's judgment, affirming that the appellant's termination was lawful and that her long tenure did not confer any right to regularization. The principle of legitimate expectation did not apply as there was no evidence of waiver of the temporary nature of her appointment. The court dismissed the appeal but urged the government to consider her claims for pension, gratuity, and voluntary retirement benefits sympathetically and promptly.