SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled in favour of Dr Shazia Salam, a contractual Anaesthetist at DRDO Hospital, whose services were terminated in February 2023 on grounds of adverse security clearance.
The Court held the termination procedurally invalid and directed the Union Territory administration to compensate the petitioner with one month’s salary in lieu of notice and to release her unpaid wages for the period July 2022 to February 2023.
Dr Salam had challenged a communication dated February 20, 2023, from the Directorate of Health Services (respondent No. 2) addressed to the Health and Medical Education Department (respondent No. 1), seeking cancellation of her contractual engagement.
Dr Salam had initially been engaged in June 2021 as Anaesthetist on a one-year contract under Government Order No. 438(JK)HME of 2021. Her tenure was subsequently extended until December 31, 2022. Despite the lapse of her official term, she continued to work in the Intensive Care Unit of Chest Disease Hospital, Srinagar, until the issuance of the termination communication on February 20, 2023.
The government respondents contended that her termination followed denial of security clearance by the CID, based on a report dated February 13, 2023, which described her as “vulnerable” and “not suitable for government job.” They argued that the engagement being contractual, her continuation in service beyond the expiry of the term was neither automatic nor obligatory.
The Court, however, found the termination to be contrary to the terms outlined in Government Order No. 398-JK(HME) of 2021 dated May 18, 2021. Clause XII of the said order permits termination only with one month’s prior notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice. It was undisputed that no such notice or compensation was provided. The Court held that this constituted a breach of contractual and legal obligations.
Moreover, the Court underscored that the termination, being based on adverse antecedents and security concerns, was stigmatic in nature. It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Brijesh Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282, to affirm that even contractual employees cannot be terminated on grounds of misconduct or adverse character assessment without adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard.
The Court also referred to a similar judgment by a coordinate bench in Feroz Ahmad Sheikh v. UT of J&K (WP(C) No. 2260/2022), holding that termination based on allegations amounts to punitive action and necessitates due process.
Acknowledging the fact that the scheme under which Dr Salam had been employed has since been discontinued, the Court ruled out the possibility of reinstatement. However, it directed that the termination communication dated February 20, 2023 shall not impede her future employment prospects. It also held that the government was duty-bound to compensate her for the period she had worked.
On the matter of unpaid salary, the Court noted that while the government denied the petitioner’s claim, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate their assertion. Consequently, it accepted the petitioner’s plea and ruled that her wages from July 2022 to February 2023 must be paid.
The Court directed the respondents to release one month’s salary in lieu of notice and to pay all pending wages within two months of the judgment. Failing this, the amount will attract interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of judgment until realisation.
The judgment marks a reaffirmation of contractual safeguards and constitutional rights for employees engaged by government agencies, even under temporary or project-based appointments.
