Mere Termination of Ad-hoc Employee for Unsatisfactory Service can not be said to be Punitive/ Stigmatic:
Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha Through President B.B. Karanjekar & Ors. Vs. Ku. Jaya & Ors. [09/09/2019]: In the referred case the respondent was appointed as Lecturer of Home Economics on ad-hoc basis till such full time Lecturer is appointed, vide appointment letter dated February 24, 1999. In the said appointment, there was also a condition in the appointment order that if her performance is found to be unsatisfactory, services can be terminated without giving any notice. As the service of the respondent was found unsatisfactory his service was terminated and salary for one month was paid to her.
The ratios of the referred case and other cases [viz. Ram Narayan Das case (AIR 1961 SC 177); Champaklal case (AIR 1964 SC 1854); Sukh Raj Bahadur case [AIR 1968 SC 1089 etc.] are as under—
- the order of termination on the ground of unsatisfactory “work and conduct” clearly falls within the class of non-stigmatic/ non-punitive orders of termination and requires no prior notice of termination.
- the status of probationer employee in a permanent vacancy is different from the status of an ad-hoc employee.
- the employer by opting to pass a simple order of termination as permitted by the terms of appointment or as permitted by the rules was conferring a benefit on the employee by passing a simple order of termination so that the employee would not suffer from any stigma which would attach to the rest of his career if a dismissal or other punitive order was passed.
For detail fact and ratio please visit at: https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/4406/4406_2018_10_1502_15823_Judgement_09-Aug-2019.pdf
