Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, in a significant ruling, directed Patna University to pay a lump sum settlement of ₹10 lakhs to a former employee who had worked continuously since 1989 but was later denied regular benefits on the ground that his appointment was ad hoc. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal, observing that once the University had extracted decades of service from the appellant, it could not deprive him of his rightful dues merely on procedural or technical grounds.
The Bench emphatically held: “Having extracted work from the appellant, he is entitled to certain monetary benefits.”
The Court noted that even if the initial appointment had been irregular, the subsequent regularization order dated 20.02.1991, issued by the then Director, Industrial Safety Management, Patna University, validated his service.
Facts
The appellant was engaged by Patna University in 1989 under the Industrial Safety Management Department. His appointment order described him as being appointed “on probation for two years,” implying a permanent post. Later, on 20 February 1991, his services were formally regularized with effect from 13 February 1991 by the same Director.
However, years later, the University contended that his appointment had been purely ad hoc and that the Director who issued the appointment had no authority to do so. No departmental action was ever taken against the Director at that time. The University continued to take the appellant’s services without objection, but when he approached the court seeking his service and retirement benefits, the University denied liability, citing irregular appointment.
The Single Judge had dismissed his writ petition, which prompted the appellant to file this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench.
Issues
- Whether the University could deny service and monetary benefits after obtaining continuous service from an employee appointed in 1989.
- Whether an appointment made by a non-competent authority, later regularized, could be treated as valid for the purpose of service benefits.
- Whether the University was liable to compensate the appellant despite procedural irregularities in appointment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had been appointed on probation, a status that could only be given to an employee against a permanent post. The University’s subsequent action of regularizing his services in 1991 further reinforced that his appointment was not ad hoc.
He contended that after 36 years of continuous service, the University’s claim that his appointment was irregular was “a desperate afterthought” raised only in the present litigation. The petitioner relied on the principle of equity and legitimate expectation, asserting that one who serves the institution continuously and faithfully cannot be denied his due merely because of an internal administrative lapse.
He submitted that the University never initiated any disciplinary or corrective action against the Director who made the appointment, which showed implied acceptance and ratification of his employment. Therefore, having benefited from his services, the University was estopped from denying him service benefits.
Respondent’s Arguments
The University contended that the appointment was made by an officer not authorized under university regulations to recruit staff, and therefore the appointment was void ab initio. It was argued that the appellant’s engagement was purely ad hoc, and his regularization order was invalid.
The State and University also submitted that, as per records, the post itself was not sanctioned, and hence, the appellant could not claim benefits of a regular employee. However, the University failed to explain why it continued to take his services for over three decades without objection or why it paid him wages and assigned duties equivalent to a regular employee throughout.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the case through the lens of equity, fairness, and legitimate expectation, observing that procedural irregularities in appointment do not extinguish the right of an employee who has continuously served the institution.
It noted that appointment on probation inherently presupposes the existence of a permanent post, and thus, even if initially irregular, the regularization order of 1991 gave retrospective legitimacy to the appointment.
The Bench underscored that no action was ever taken against the Director who issued the appointment, suggesting that the University had, in effect, ratified the engagement. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that once the University had benefited from the appellant’s long service, denying him relief on technicalities would amount to unjust enrichment.
Precedent Analysis
Although the judgment did not cite specific Supreme Court authorities, its reasoning resonates with principles laid down in:
- State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) – where the Supreme Court held that irregular appointments without due process could not be regularized. However, this case was distinguished because here, the appointment was followed by a formal regularization order in 1991, long before the Umadevi ruling.
- State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) – where the Supreme Court recognized that workers performing similar duties as regular employees cannot be denied parity or compensation on technical grounds.
- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta (2005) – which reiterated that long service followed by acquiescence from the employer creates an equitable right to some form of monetary relief.
The Court’s reliance on equitable considerations echoes the judiciary’s consistent view that administrative irregularities should not become tools for exploitation of employees who have rendered long years of service.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench found that the University’s position was inconsistent and inequitable. It observed that the Director who issued the appointment letter had simultaneously issued the regularization order, and the University had accepted both documents without objection for decades.
“A person can be appointed on probation only against a permanent post,” the Court noted, emphasizing that the appellant’s service was treated as permanent for all practical purposes.
The Court held that no action was taken against the appointing authority, nor was any objection raised during the appellant’s long tenure. The University had benefited from his work for decades, and therefore could not, at this stage, repudiate the appointment merely on procedural grounds.
Recognizing the appellant’s prolonged service and the impracticality of reconstructing records from 1989, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach, directing a one-time monetary settlement as compensation for his service rather than ordering full-scale regularization with arrears.
Conclusion
The Division Bench disposed of the appeal, recording that the University had issued a cheque of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) in favor of the appellant as final settlement. The Court accepted this payment as a “one-time and final settlement” of the dispute, while also safeguarding the appellant’s right to revive the order in case the cheque was dishonored.
The Court concluded: “Having extracted work from the appellant, he is entitled to certain monetary benefits.”
The matter was thus closed, marking an equitable end to a dispute that had lingered for over three decades.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that public institutions cannot escape liability after availing services from irregularly appointed employees for long durations. It affirms that when procedural lapses are followed by years of acquiescence and benefit, courts may apply equitable relief instead of strictly legalistic denial.
The ruling will likely serve as persuasive precedent in similar cases across educational and government institutions where ad hoc or irregular appointees have rendered long service without regularization. It also underscores judicial preference for fairness over formality and substance over technicality.
FAQs
1. What was the main legal issue before the Patna High Court?
Whether Patna University could deny service or monetary benefits to an employee who served continuously for decades on the ground that his initial appointment was irregular.
2. What did the Court ultimately direct?
The Court ordered Patna University to pay ₹10 lakh as a one-time final settlement to the appellant, recognizing his long service from 1989 to retirement.
3. Why is this judgment important?
It reinforces that public bodies cannot unjustly deny compensation after benefiting from an employee’s service, even if the initial appointment was irregular.
