Bombay High Court
Sri Assaram Raibhah Dhage vs Executive Engineer And Others on 26 October, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1988(4)BOMCR158, (1988)90BOMLR511, [1989(59)FLR336], (1990)ILLJ48BOM
JUDGMENT Lentin, J.
1. The services of an employee, be he permanent or temporary, cannot be terminated with retrospective effect. Such is the ratio of this judgment.
2. On June 7, 1980. The petitioner, a project displaced person was appointed as a Mustering Assistant in the Work Charge Establishment at a monthly salary of Rs. 200. Thereafter he worked continuously without break in service till March 1986, when by a letter of termination dated March 11, 1986 his services were retrospectively terminated with effect from March 1, 1986. Hence this writ petition.
3. The petitioner's learned Counsel Miss Purohit is perfectly justified in making a grievance that it is unthinkable that an employee's services can be terminated with retrospective effect, as done in the present case. We join learned Counsel in her astonishment. For that matter, one of the conditions in the letter of appointment is that if the petitioner desired to resign he was liable to pay one month's salary or give one month's notice. It is therefore ironical that on the other hand, the petitioner's services were terminated with retrospective effect.
4. However, the respondents' learned Counsel Mr. Bhatkar ventures that the date of termination, namely March 1, 1986 in the letter of termination must be typographical error. This is an ipse dixit it is purely conjecture and speculative reasoning. Significantly enough, in the affidavit-in-reply, no such case of a typographical error is even faintly suggested. For that matter, despite the fact that in the petition it has been categorically stated in no uncertain terms that by this letter of termination, the petitioner's the services were terminated with retrospective effect from March 1, 1986, not even the whisper of denial is to be found in the affidavit-in-reply. Thus the myth of a typographical error stated across the Bar can safely be ruled out.
5. Mr. Bhatkar now takes refuge that the petitioner's appointment was merely temporary. However, he is unable to say under what provisions of law the petitioner's employment, even if temporary, could be terminated with retrospective effect.
6. In the result, the termination order dated March 11, 1986 is set aside. The petitioner shall be paid his salary as if he had continued to be in employment.
7. The Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs.