SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.N. Phukan and B.N. Agarwal, JJ.

C.A. No. 6425 of 1995. D/d. 20.3.2002.

Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and ors. - Appellants

Versus

Jiwan Singh and anr. - Respondents

Reinstatement - Principles of natural justice - Respondents appointed as Moharrar in the Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana - After over 9 years of service an order passed by the Commissioner to the effect "that respondents be not given any work till the case against them is decided and they be not given any duty" - No subsistence allowance paid - Held that, order passed by Municipal Corporation was neither an order of suspension nor an order of termination - Order did not terminate the relationship of employer and employee - Respondents were prevented from doing their duty, which in our opinion was an arbitrary one - High Court rightly allowed the writ petition and it calls for no interference.

[Para 5]

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated November 29, 1994 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6367 of 1994. The respondents herein were appointed as candidate Moharrar in the Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana sometime in 1983/1984. After over 9 years of service of the respondents, the following orders were passed on 6.4.1992 by the Admn. Superintendent, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana:

"The Commissioner vide his order dated 30.3.92 has ordered that Sh. Rakha Ram, OBI be not posted on any octroi duty at any major octroi post. The Commissioner vide same order has also ordered that Sh. Om Parkash and Sh. Jiwan Singh, Candidate Moharrar be also not given any work till the case against them is decided and they be not given any duty."

2. Being aggrieved by the order the respondents approached the High Court by filing a writ petition with a prayer that the direction be issued to the appellants to reinstate the respondents in service in their respective posts and further to give duty to the respondents in which they had been working since 1983. Another prayer was made that the direction be issued to the appellants to pay arrears of salary etc. for the entire period they were out of service. The High Court allowed the writ petition with the following directions:

"(i) We quash Annexure P/1 leaving it open to the authorities to proceed afresh according to law if some disciplinary action is contemplated against the petitioners.

(ii) To regularise the period since April 6, 1992 till date by a reasoned order according to law within one month from today.

(iii) The amount found to be due to the petitioners in accordance with the order passed in compliance with direction No.(ii) above shall be paid within one month of the passing of the order."

3. Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that as the respondents were appointed purely on temporary basis their services could be terminated any time without notice and therefore the order dated 6.4.1992 passed by Admn. Superintendent, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana which was a termination order was legal and valid.

4. Per contra, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the said order was not an order of termination and even otherwise as the respondents were in service for more than 9 years their services could not have been terminated without following the principle of natural justice.

5. In our considered view the order dated 6.4.1992 passed by the Admn. Superintendent, Municipal Corporation was neither an order of suspension nor an order of termination. Admittedly, no subsistence allowance was paid. This order did not terminate the relationship of employer and employee. We hold that by this order the respondents were prevented from doing their duty, which in our opinion was an arbitrary one. The respondents who were working in temporary capacity for 9 years, refusal to perform their duty without assigning any reason is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the High Court rightly allowed the writ petition and it calls for no interference.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that direction No.(ii) of the High Court may be clarified by this Court. By this direction the appellants were directed to regularise the period of service since April 6, 1992 till date by a reasoned order. We clarify that the direction was not to regularise the services of the respondents in the posts but to regularise the period for which they were out of service and the said period would be counted for their service. We direct the appellants to comply with the orders of the High Court within 3 months from today.

7. The appeal is dismissed. No orders as to cost.

.