SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant against part of the order dated 12.5.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while disposing of the writ petition (CWP No. 5283 of 2009) filed by the appellant, he has been granted damages of Rs. 5.00 lacs on account of illegal action of the Chandigarh Administration.
(2.) THE appellant was working as Assistant Professor in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. He was having the additional charge of Estate Officer of the said Institution. Vide appointment letter dated 13.3.2009 (Annexure P -20), he was appointed to the post of Registrar (on contract basis), Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, for a period of five years or till he completes the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier. It was further stipulated that the term of appointment may be extended for further period subject to the approval of the competent authority. After issuance of the said appointment letter, the appellant joined on the post of Registrar, but after six days, the aforesaid appointment was cancelled on the ground that the appointment letter was issued during the period of model code of conduct. The said action of the Chandigarh Administration was challenged by the appellant by filing the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition after coming to the conclusion that the order of cancelling the appointment of the appellant was illegal. After holding the action of the Chandigarh Administration as illegal, the learned Single Judge considered that some relief should be granted to the appellant, as by that time the period of five years had expired due to efflux of time. Keeping in view this situation and the future prospects of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has awarded damages/compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs to the appellant, while observing as under : "This brings this Court to the vexed question of the relief, which can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was Assistant Professor and working as the Estate Officer of the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. Had he served at the post of the Registrar his social status would have got a boost and also his prospects for future appointments in other institutes would have brightened. There are serious allegations of malafide against the Chandigarh Administration to the effect that the Chandigarh Administration not only acted illegally but also completely beyond its powers; however I would not go so far without a proper trial. It is not disputed that the original five years term for which the petitioner was appointed has come to an end by efflux of time. The circumstances now do not permit him to join as Registrar. In my opinion, it cannot even be directed that he be granted the pay and allowances for the period since he did not actually work on the post. He is also not shown to have not worked elsewhere in this interregnum. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Dipak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Punjab Instruction and others, reported as 1987 AIR (SC) 1422. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the employee of a private body (even though covered by statutory rules) would only be entitled to damages for acts of unlawful termination of service. Since the petitioner has been fighting this legal battle for the past five years and also he has lost the future benefits which could have accrued by working on this post for said period, I deem it appropriate to grant him damages of Rs.5.00 lacs. Ordered accordingly. In case the amount of damages is not paid within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this judgment to the date of payment. The petition is disposed of in the above terms."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that still the appellant has 2 1/2 years to complete the age of 62 years, though he is already working as Assistant Professor and Estate Officer of the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, and he should be given appointment for the remaining period, till he completes the age of 62 years. He further argued that in a tenure post, an employee can be permitted to serve till the date of superannuation, which is the age of 62 years in the present case. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India, 1992 (3) SCC 526 and P. Venugopal v. Union of India, 2008 (5) SCC 1.;