One of the ‘strangest cases’; employee terminated 30 years after appointment, HC reinstates him

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court has set aside the orders of the Department of Agriculture which sought to cancel the service of an employee 30 years after he was appointed.

On the verge of retirement, the Government sought to dismiss him because of alleged disability.

Calling it a strange case, the division bench of the HC comprising Justice G Narendar and Justice CM Poonacha said, “Here is a person who has served almost three decades and on the verge of his superannuation is now sought to be chased away by the Department. This Court cannot but empathise with the petitioner in view of the fact that the impugned order does not disclose as to what is the reason on which the services are sought to be terminated. This is one of the strangest cases which we have come across.”

N Jayaramaiah was engaged by the Water Shed Development Department as a peon on daily wage basis on March 4, 1991. In 2007 his services were regularized.

However on January 6, 2021, the regularization was cancelled and Jayaramaiah’s services came to be terminated.

Delay of 17 years

The Department contended that he had filed a petition in the HC in 1991 and he was continued in service based on an interim order of the court.

Such services were disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi. The HC however said that the delay in the action taken by the Department cannot be ignored.

“We have no quarrel with the principle of law settled by the Constitution Bench in the case of Umadevi. But what shocks us is that the Respondent-State woke up to a fact after nearly 14 years of the service were confirmed and the confirmation came after the employee had put in nearly 17 years of service,” the HC said.

The HC said that the action of the Government has to be set aside due to the delay.

“In our considered opinion, the proceedings initiated by the Government are vitiated on the ground of delay and laches itself. The order impugned does not disclose as to what is the disability suffered by the Petitioner. The ground of the Petitioner having the benefit of interim order in the Writ Petition is also not forthcoming from the impugned order or the records.” (WP 10724/2021)