Contractual conductor fired for misconduct. No inquiry. He still won.

Two policies, one dead conductor, and a son caught between them

When Brijesh Kumar's father died in 2003 while working as a bus conductor for the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), Brijesh was still a minor. His mother applied for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. She heard nothing back. Five years later, Brijesh turned 18 and got his educational certificates. His mother applied again. Still no compassionate appointment. Instead, UPSRTC offered him something else entirely: a contractual conductor's job under a preferential hiring policy for dependents of deceased employees. Brijesh took it. He paid a security deposit. He signed a written agreement in December 2012. Then, during his contractual service, he was caught carrying ticketless passengers twice and excess unbooked luggage once. In January 2016, UPSRTC terminated his services for misconduct — without any disciplinary inquiry. Brijesh challenged the termination. The Allahabad High Court ruled he was a permanent employee appointed on compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court disagreed on that point. But it still struck down the termination. Why? Because the termination was stigmatic and passed without following natural justice. The stakes: whether a contractual employee hired under a preferential policy can be fired for misconduct without a hearing, and whether that policy can ever be confused with a compassionate appointment.

The father who died in harness

Brijesh Kumar's father was a regular conductor with UPSRTC. He died on 18 October 2003 while still in service. Brijesh was a minor at the time. His mother moved an application for compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. She received no response. After Brijesh attained majority in 2008 and obtained his educational qualifications, his mother applied again. Still no compassionate appointment was granted.

Instead, UPSRTC's Board, at its 188th meeting on 9 August 2012, took a policy decision. It decided to provide preferential contractual appointments to dependents of deceased employees. Under this policy, Brijesh was offered a contractual appointment as conductor. He accepted. He executed a written agreement on 12 December 2012. He paid a security deposit. He began working as a contractual conductor.

What the contractual agreement actually said

The agreement Brijesh signed was clear. It stated his appointment was purely contractual. It was not under the Dying in Harness Rules. It was not a compassionate appointment. The offer letter, the policy, and the agreement all pointed in one direction: this was a contractual engagement, period. The Supreme Court would later emphasise this point repeatedly.

During his contractual service, Brijesh ran into trouble. On two occasions, he was caught carrying ticketless passengers. On one occasion, he was caught carrying excess unbooked luggage. UPSRTC's Assistant Regional Manager at Mathura issued a termination order on 30 January 2016. The order cited these incidents as misconduct. It terminated his services. No disciplinary inquiry was held. No show-cause notice was issued. No opportunity of hearing was given.

The High Court's view: compassionate, permanent, protected

Brijesh challenged the termination before the Allahabad High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed his writ petition on 12 January 2018. The Single Judge held that Brijesh was appointed on compassionate basis under the Dying in Harness Rules. He was a permanent employee. His termination without any disciplinary inquiry was illegal. The termination was set aside.

UPSRTC appealed. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on 12 September 2018. The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's findings. It held that the appointment was compassionate. Brijesh was a permanent employee. The termination could not stand.

UPSRTC then approached the Supreme Court.

What UPSRTC argued

The learned Counsel for UPSRTC argued that the High Court had completely misread the facts. Brijesh was never appointed on compassionate grounds. He was appointed under a contractual preferential hiring policy. The agreement he signed was explicit. The policy was clear. The Dying in Harness Rules were never invoked. The appointment was contractual, not permanent. Therefore, the termination was valid. No disciplinary inquiry was required for a contractual employee. The High Court had erred in treating him as a permanent compassionate appointee.

What Brijesh argued

The learned Counsel for Brijesh argued that the appointment was indeed compassionate. His mother had applied under the Dying in Harness Rules. The fact that UPSRTC took a different policy route did not change the character of the appointment. The appointment was made because of his father's death in harness. That made it compassionate. And a compassionate appointment is always permanent. Therefore, the termination without inquiry was illegal. The High Court was right.

The Supreme Court's first finding: this was not a compassionate appointment

Justice Pankaj Mithal, writing for the Bench also comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, began by examining the nature of Brijesh's appointment. The Court noted that the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 provide for compassionate appointment to dependents of government servants who die in harness. But Brijesh was not appointed under those rules. He was appointed under a Board policy decision dated 9 August 2012. That policy provided for preferential contractual appointments. The offer letter, the policy, and the agreement all said the same thing: contractual, not compassionate.

The Court observed: "An appointment offered under a preferential contractual hiring policy for dependents of deceased employees, even if made pursuant to an application for compassionate appointment, does not constitute a compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules if the offer letter, policy, and agreement all indicate contractual engagement with no reference to compassionate appointment."

The High Court had erred. Brijesh was not a permanent employee appointed on compassionate grounds. He was a contractual employee hired under a preferential policy.

The obiter that matters: compassionate appointments are permanent

In passing, the Court made an observation that will be cited in future disputes. It said: "Compassionate appointments are always of permanent nature and are not liable to be treated as temporary or contractual." This was not necessary for the decision — Brijesh's appointment was not compassionate — but it reaffirms a settled legal position. If you get a compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, you get permanency. No ifs, no buts.

The Supreme Court's second finding: stigmatic termination needs natural justice

But the Court did not stop there. It examined the termination order itself. The order cited misconduct: carrying ticketless passengers and excess unbooked luggage. It terminated Brijesh's services on that ground. The Court held that this was a stigmatic termination. It was not a simple discharge or a non-renewal of a contract. It was a termination for misconduct. And a stigmatic termination cannot be passed without following the principles of natural justice.

The Court observed: "Termination of services on the ground of misconduct, even of a contractual employee, is stigmatic in nature and cannot be passed without following the principles of natural justice, including a regular inquiry and opportunity of hearing."

No inquiry was held. No show-cause notice was issued. No opportunity of hearing was given. The termination was illegal. The High Court was right to quash it — though for the wrong reason.

The operative order: partly allowed, but the termination stays quashed

The Supreme Court partly allowed UPSRTC's appeal. It set aside the High Court's findings that Brijesh's appointment was compassionate under the Dying in Harness Rules and of a permanent nature. But it left undisturbed the quashing of the termination order dated 30 January 2016. The termination remained set aside. Brijesh was entitled to continue as a contractual employee.

The Court also added an obiter: Brijesh could claim regularization if so advised in accordance with law. This was not the issue before the Court, but the door was left open.

What this means for employers and employees

For employers — especially public sector corporations — this judgment is a sharp reminder. You cannot fire a contractual employee for misconduct without a disciplinary inquiry. Even if the employee is contractual. Even if the appointment was not permanent. If the termination is stigmatic — if it names misconduct as the reason — you must follow natural justice. A show-cause notice. An opportunity of hearing. A proper inquiry. Skip these steps, and the termination will be struck down, no matter how valid the underlying misconduct.

For employees — especially those hired under preferential policies for dependents of deceased employees — this judgment clarifies your status. You are not automatically a compassionate appointee. Read your offer letter. Read your agreement. If it says "contractual", it is contractual. You do not get the permanency of a compassionate appointment. But you do get the protection of natural justice. Your employer cannot terminate you for misconduct without a hearing.

THE PLAY: If you are a contractual employee facing termination for misconduct, demand a disciplinary inquiry. If your employer refuses, challenge the termination. The Supreme Court has now held that stigmatic termination of a contractual employee without natural justice is illegal.

The bottom line

Brijesh Kumar lost the battle over the nature of his appointment — it was contractual, not compassionate — but he won the war: his termination was quashed, and he remains employed. The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line: preferential contractual hiring is not compassionate appointment, but even contractual employees cannot be fired for misconduct without a hearing.