Gujarat HC Grants ₹5L Compensation To Wife Of Deceased Employee Who Was Terminated As He Was Suffering From Neurological Ailment
The Gujarat High Court granted compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the wife of the deceased employee who was terminated as he was suffering from some neurological ailment.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed against the order of the Single Judge by which the writ petition of the employee was dismissed.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt emphasised, “There is no misconduct / unsatisfactory performance alleged against the petitioner and the affidavit as mentioned hereinabove, discloses the true reason of termination. The petitioner has been construed as medically unfit for doing the job of a Driver. In wake of the aforesaid facts, the respondent–University, instead of terminating the services of the appellant – original petitioner, could have accommodated him in any other department.”
The Bench added that the University was under an obligation to continue the employee on any other suitable post, after receipt of the opinion of the Medical Board.
Advocate Vaibhav A. Vyas appeared on behalf of the appellants while Advocate Maunish T. Pathak appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The deceased employee was appointed under the respondent University as a driver in 2014 on a contractual basis for a fixed salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month. After rendering almost 3 years of service, vide an office order, he was terminated with immediate effect by resorting to one of the conditions of the appointment order. He assailed his termination in the writ petition, however, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the same.
As a result, the appeal was preferred before the Division Bench. It was submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the service of the deceased employee was terminated only for the reason that he was suffering from some neurological ailment and that no misconduct or any complaint was alleged against the functioning/service rendered by him as a driver. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant passed away and hence, was represented by his wife.
The High Court in the above regard said, “After the receipt of Medical Board advice, the respondent-University could have maintained their stance of allocating the duty as Peon-Cum-Lab Attendant to the petitioner however, they unswervingly terminated him from services.”
The Court observed that the termination of the employee from service by resorting to one of the conditions of the appointment order was uncalled for and was unjustified.
“Had he been continued in service, he was entitled to be placed in the regular pay-scale hence, as a sequel, his wife – the present appellant could have got terminal benefits, which are being paid on the demise of the regular employee”, it further noted.
The Court also noted that as per the Apex Court, the constitutional courts are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the lawfulness of executive decisions and the primary purpose of quashing any action is to preserve order in the legal system by preventing excess and abuse of power or to set aside arbitrary actions, and the primary duty of the constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary.
“It is held that in public law proceedings, when it is realised that the prayer in the writ petition is unattainable due to passage of time, the constitutional courts may not dismiss the writ proceedings on the ground of their perceived futility. In the life of litigation, passage of time can stand both as an ally and adversary, and the duty is to transcend the constraints of time and perform the primary duty of a constitutional court to control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary action. This is the fit case, wherein the observations of the Apex Court are required to be followed for determination of final relief”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal to an extent and directed that Rs. 5 lakh compensation be paid to the widow within three months.
Cause Title- Maheshbhai Tejabhai Desai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Vaibhav A. Vyas
Respondents: Advocates Aditya Pathak and Maunish T. Pathak.
