Summary
The Supreme Court set aside continuity of service granted to a contract conductor re-engaged after disciplinary termination. He had not challenged either the termination following enquiry or the fresh appointment. Reliance on an earlier batch decision overlooked those individual facts. Seniority was directed to count from the date of fresh appointment rather than being carried across the subsisting termination.
Issues
- Whether a fresh contractual appointee could obtain continuity without challenging and obtaining adjudication of the termination and fresh-engagement orders.
Held
- The respondent sought continuity after accepting fresh engagement and left the disciplinary termination and fresh appointment outside the challenge. The High Court could not grant continuity on that footing. (¶¶ 3, 6, 7)
- Continuity addresses the hiatus created by a termination that is set aside. Where termination and fresh engagement remained unchallenged, treating service as continuous would improperly equate the respondent with contractual employees having unblemished service. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The earlier batch ruling involved different circumstances, including lack of enquiry or violation of natural justice. Individual facts could not be ignored by mechanically extending its directions. (¶¶ 5, 9, 10)
- The High Court orders were set aside and seniority directed to run from the fresh appointment. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Corporation’s appeal allowed and disposed of without costs; Single Judge and Division Bench judgments set aside. Respondent’s seniority to count from fresh appointment.