Summary
With the appointed law officers’ terms having expired during litigation, the Court modified the cancellation of their appointments by treating it as termination under Rule 30(6) rather than removal under Rule 30(5). Each officer was awarded one month’s retainer in lieu of notice. Future appointment could be considered without adverse effect from the cancellation or High Court observations, and the legal questions raised were left open.
Issues
- What effective relief remained after the law officers’ fixed terms expired.
- Whether the cancellation could be modified to non-stigmatic termination with notice compensation.
Provisions considered
- Rule 30(5) and (6), Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointments, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984The reproduced clauses distinguish removal for incompatible conduct from termination at pleasure on one month’s notice or payment of the prescribed retainer in lieu. (¶ 18–20)
Held
- Expiry of the respective terms meant that even affirming the High Court would not entitle the officers to continue. The Court fashioned relief in light of that subsequent development rather than determining the contested legal issues. (¶¶ 10–11, 19, 23)
- In the interests of justice, the cancellation order of 28 August 2015 was treated as passed under Rule 30(6). The State was directed to pay each respondent one month’s retainer as fixed by the appointment letter within three months of receipt of the order. (¶ 19–21)
- The State remained free to consider future appointments if it wished, without the original or modified cancellation or High Court observations standing in the respondents’ way. The parties’ legal questions were expressly left open. (¶ 22–23)
Result
Appeal disposed of by modifying cancellation to Rule 30(6) termination and directing one month’s retainer for each respondent; legal questions left open.