M.Sadasivam v. Chief Editor cum DirectorEtymological Dictionary ProjectSecretary, Tamil Development and Culture, Fort.St.George,Chennai -9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.10.2009C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUWRIT PETITION NO.33770 OF 2006M.Sadasivam.. Petitioner-Vs.-Chief Editor cum DirectorEtymological Dictionary ProjectSecretary, Tamil Development and Culture, Fort.St.George,Chennai -9.. RespondentWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for therecords of the proceedings in Na.Ka.165/98 dated 13.09.1998 of therespondent i.e., Chief Editor cum Director Etymological DirectionaryProject, Secretary Tamil Development and Culture, Chennai 9, quashthe same and set aside the order of termination of service passed byhim and order reinstatement. For Petitioner :Mr. Mohamud SharifFor Respondent:Mr. N.Neelakandan, Govt. Advocate- - -O R D E RThe petitioner was a retired teacher and was drawing pensionfrom the Government. When the respondent wanted to start TamilEtymology Dictionary Project, the petitioner's services wererequired. He was given a posting order appointing him on aconsolidated pay of Rs.7,000/- as the Editor of the project for theyear 1996-1997. The project funds were given by the State Governmentthrough the Tamil Development and Culture Department videG.O.Ms.No.195 dated 02.09.1996. The said order stated thatappointments listed out therein were made on temporary basis. Theycan continue in service for one year or until the completion of theproject, whichever was earlier. The petitioner's service wascontinued for more than one year. However by an order dated13.08.1998 the petitioner was relieved from his duty and was directedto hand over the charges. The petitioner challenged the relievingorder by filing O.A.No.6777 of 1998 before the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal.2. The contention of the petitioner was that even after theexpiry of one year on 31.08.1997, the petitioner's services werecontinued. However, by the impunged order his services weredispensed with without assigning any reason. Therefore thepetitioner wanted the impugned order to be set aside and also for hisrestoration. The petitioner claimed that he was a qualifiedacademician holding a Doctors degree in Tamil and a versatile scholarin Tamil. He had published more than two hundred books to his credit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and was acclaimed as the greatest living Lexicographer in theInternational Lexicography Conference held at Exeter University inEngland and U.K.3. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed areply affidavit dated 10.02.1999. In the reply affidavit, it wasstated that there is no question of any tenure appointment given tothe petitioner for one year or on completion of project whichever islater. On the contrary, the term of appointment was for one year oron completion of the project whichever was earlier. It is alsostated that he was appointed with the hope that his services will beimmensely useful to the project, but that was not done. Apart fromthat, the petitioner was promoting a monthly magazine by name'Valarum Tamil Ulagam' of which he was the Publisher and Editor. Hehad never informed the Government about such publication of themagazine. In any event, the petitioner wrote critically against theFormer President of India in his journal on the ground that insteadof being detached he was found in opposition political parties'stages and he should remain neutral. He also stated in that articlethere were so many persons carrying on tales to the Government andthat he was getting only Rs.3,000/- as salary from the project whichwas contrary to facts.4. When the publication was brought to the notice of theGovernment and the Government, it decided not to continue theservices of the petitioner.5. The petitioner had also filed an additional affidavit dated05.10.2009. Apart from reiterating his earlier contentions, he alsostated that he was not paid his salary for thirteen days duringAugust 1998 for which he had worked.6. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stoodtransferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.33770 of 2006. 7. The contention raised by the petitioner proceeds on thebasis as if that he was holding a career appointment. On thecontrary, the present posting was given on a re-employment basis andthe tenure itself had been prescribed in the term of appointment.Merely because he had continued beyond that tenure, it will not giverise to any new right for the petitioner.8. Even though the Government had come up with some reasons fordispensing with the services of the petitioner it can at maximum canbe considered as motive and not its foundation. But the terminationwas not based upon any misconduct for which an enquiry should havebeen held. When a person has superannuated from service, the rulesframed under Section 309 will not be applicable for such re-employment. The petitioner having accepted the term of appointmentwhich itself was only temporary and based upon project funding, hecannot contend that there must be an enquiry before dispensing withhis service cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the impugned orderrelieving the petitioner did not assign any reason and it was asimple termination and non stigmatic. The Supreme Court vide itsdecision in the case of Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies,Lucknow, U.P. v. Prakash Chandra Saxena and reported in 1994 (5) SCC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 177 has held that a termination simpliciter of the services of atemporary Government Servant under contract of employment, withoutconducting an enquiry does not amount to termination of misconduct.It was only when the petitioner had made certain allegations, therespondent has chosen to come with some possible explanation for notcontinuing in service. Under the special circumstances, no reliefcan be granted to the petitioner by setting aside the order oftermination.9. Mr.Mohamud Sharif, learned counsel for the petitioner,states that the respondent had not paid the petitioner his thirteendays' salary for which he had worked. He also sought some interestfor the delayed payment of salary. 10. Though the petitioner had never claimed his salary and hadimmediately questioned the termination, the question of therespondent delayed of his salary may not arise. In any event, inorder to give a quietus to the controversy, the respondent is herebydirected to pay Rs.7,000/- (being one month salary) to the petitionerwithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. The writ petition is dismissed in other respects, exceptfor the above direction. No costs.srk Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Chief Editor cum DirectorEtymological Dictionary ProjectSecretary,Tamil Development and Culture,Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.1CC to Mr.Mahmud sharif, Advocate (SR.51349)1CC to The Government Pleader (SR.50979)W.P.No.33770 of 2006RSM (CO)SS (13.11.2009)