The petitioner was a retired teacher and was drawing pension from the Government. When the respondent wanted to start Tamil Etymology Dictionary Project, the petitioner's services were required. He was given a posting order appointing him on a consolidated pay of Rs.7,000/- as the Editor of the project for the year 1996-1997. The project funds were given by the State Government through the Tamil Development and Culture Department vide G.O.Ms.No.195 dated 02.09.1996. The said order stated that appointments listed out therein were made on temporary basis. They can continue in service for one year or until the completion of the project, whichever was earlier. The petitioner's service was continued for more than one year. However by an order dated 13.08.1998 the petitioner was relieved from his duty and was directed to hand over the charges. The petitioner challenged the relieving order by filing O.A.No.6777 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
2. The contention of the petitioner was that even after the expiry of one year on 31.08.1997, the petitioner's services were continued. However, by the impunged order his services were dispensed with without assigning any reason. Therefore the petitioner wanted the impugned order to be set aside and also for his restoration. The petitioner claimed that he was a qualified academician holding a Doctors degree in Tamil and a versatile scholar in Tamil. He had published more than two hundred books to his credit and was acclaimed as the greatest living Lexicographer in the International Lexicography Conference held at Exeter University in England and U.K.
3. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit dated 10.02.1999. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that there is no question of any tenure appointment given to the petitioner for one year or on completion of project whichever is later. On the contrary, the term of appointment was for one year or on completion of the project whichever was earlier. It is also stated that he was appointed with the hope that his services will be immensely useful to the project, but that was not done. Apart from that, the petitioner was promoting a monthly magazine by name 'Valarum Tamil Ulagam' of which he was the Publisher and Editor. He had never informed the Government about such publication of the magazine. In any event, the petitioner wrote critically against the Former President of India in his journal on the ground that instead of being detached he was found in opposition political parties' stages and he should remain neutral. He also stated in that article there were so many persons carrying on tales to the Government and that he was getting only Rs.3,000/- as salary from the project which was contrary to facts.
4. When the publication was brought to the notice of the Government and the Government, it decided not to continue the services of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner had also filed an additional affidavit dated 05.10.2009. Apart from reiterating his earlier contentions, he also stated that he was not paid his salary for thirteen days during August 1998 for which he had worked.
6. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.33770 of 2006.
7. The contention raised by the petitioner proceeds on the basis as if that he was holding a career appointment. On the contrary, the present posting was given on a re-employment basis and the tenure itself had been prescribed in the term of appointment. Merely because he had continued beyond that tenure, it will not give rise to any new right for the petitioner.
8. Even though the Government had come up with some reasons for dispensing with the services of the petitioner it can at maximum can be considered as motive and not its foundation. But the termination was not based upon any misconduct for which an enquiry should have been held. When a person has superannuated from service, the rules framed under Section 309 will not be applicable for such re-employment. The petitioner having accepted the term of appointment which itself was only temporary and based upon project funding, he cannot contend that there must be an enquiry before dispensing with his service cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the impugned order relieving the petitioner did not assign any reason and it was a simple termination and non stigmatic. The Supreme Court vide its decision in the case of Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, U.P. v. Prakash Chandra Saxena and reported in 1994 (5) SCC 177 has held that a termination simpliciter of the services of a temporary Government Servant under contract of employment, without conducting an enquiry does not amount to termination of misconduct. It was only when the petitioner had made certain allegations, the respondent has chosen to come with some possible explanation for not continuing in service. Under the special circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner by setting aside the order of termination.
9. Mr.Mohamud Sharif, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the respondent had not paid the petitioner his thirteen days' salary for which he had worked. He also sought some interest for the delayed payment of salary.
10. Though the petitioner had never claimed his salary and had immediately questioned the termination, the question of the respondent delayed of his salary may not arise. In any event, in order to give a quietus to the controversy, the respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.7,000/- (being one month salary) to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is dismissed in other respects, except for the above direction. No costs.
srk To The Chief Editor cum Director Etymological Dictionary Project Govt. Museum, Egmore, Madras 8