In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that temporary or contractual employees cannot claim parity with others similarly situated unless they demonstrate a clear legal entitlement. The judgment came in State of Odisha & Ors. v. Dilip Kumar Mohapatra (Civil Appeal No. 14132 of 2024), where the Court set aside an Odisha High Court order that had reinstated a terminated contractual employee.
Delivering the verdict, a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra emphasized that the doctrine of “negative equality” cannot be invoked under Article 14 of the Constitution when no underlying legal right exists.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Dilip Kumar Mohapatra, was appointed as a Computer Technician at the College of Teacher Education, Balasore, Odisha, under a temporary appointment dated April 23, 2001. His engagement was specifically limited to one year or until the post was filled on a regular basis, whichever occurred first.
On January 22, 2002, his services were terminated without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. Mohapatra challenged this termination before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, arguing that it violated the principles of natural justice and lacked justification.
The Tribunal ruled that since Mohapatra’s appointment was purely temporary and not made through any regular recruitment process, he was not entitled to reinstatement. Instead, it awarded him salary for the remaining term of his original engagement.
Aggrieved, Mohapatra approached the Odisha High Court, which quashed the Tribunal’s decision. The High Court directed his reinstatement with full service benefits, citing parity with other similarly terminated employees who had been reinstated pursuant to separate legal proceedings.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The case raised key legal questions:
1. Nature of Temporary Appointments: Whether a temporary appointment, not made through regular recruitment, creates any enforceable right to continued employment.
2. Principle of Natural Justice: Whether Mohapatra’s termination violated his procedural rights.
3. Negative Equality: Whether relief could be granted solely because other similarly situated employees had been reinstated in separate cases.
4. Judicial Oversight: The appropriateness of the High Court overturning the Tribunal’s findings based on unrelated precedents.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant (State of Odisha):
The counsel for the State contended that:
– Mohapatra’s engagement was explicitly temporary and subject to termination either at the end of the term or upon regular recruitment.
– The termination was non-stigmatic and did not violate the principles of natural justice.
– Parity with other reinstated employees was irrelevant, as Mohapatra’s case lacked the requisite legal foundation.
For the Respondent (Dilip Kumar Mohapatra):
The respondent’s counsel argued that:
– The termination was arbitrary, as it was effected without notice or opportunity to respond.
– The State discriminated against Mohapatra by reinstating others in similar circumstances.
– The High Court’s decision to order reinstatement was justified to rectify this unequal treatment.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court underscored the temporary nature of Mohapatra’s appointment, highlighting that:
– He was engaged solely to assist with operating computer systems funded by a UGC development grant.
– There was no evidence of his selection being made through a statutory recruitment process.
– Temporary appointments, unless regularized through proper channels, do not create a vested right to continue employment.
Addressing the issue of negative equality, the Court relied on its previous decisions, including Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati, observing:
“There is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. If a person has no right, they cannot claim parity merely because others in similar situations were erroneously granted relief.”
The bench also criticized the High Court for granting reinstatement without independently evaluating the merits of Mohapatra’s case. It emphasized that the doctrine of judicial restraint obliges courts to respect the findings of specialized forums like tribunals, particularly when no legal or procedural error is evident.
Judgment and Relief Granted
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order of reinstatement. However, recognizing the protracted litigation and the expectation created by the State’s treatment of other employees, the Court awarded Mohapatra a lump sum compensation of ₹5 lakhs as a full and final settlement.
Justice Manoj Misra, writing for the bench, noted:
“While parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the prolonged litigation and differential treatment by the State warrant equitable relief through monetary compensation.”
