Court Quashes Arbitrary Order, Orders Retrospective Regularization of Employee's Service

Background

The case involves a government employee, Srinibas Das , who was initially appointed as a Nightwatchman-cum-Sweeper in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Rasgobindpur, on February 20, 1992. After serving in this position for over two decades, Das 's service was regularized on February 15, 2016, against a vacant Class-IV post. However, Das sought to have his service regularized from the initial date of his appointment, i.e., February 20, 1992, rather than the date of his regularization.

Arguments

Das argued that his case was similar to those of other employees who had been granted retrospective regularization of their services based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar. The government, on the other hand, contended that the Finance Department Resolution dated September 4, 2012 precluded the retrospective regularization of Das 's service, as the period of his initial engagement and temporary status could not be counted towards retirement and other service benefits.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court found that the Additional Chief Secretary had not properly considered the principles laid down in the Amarkant Rai case while passing the impugned order. The court also noted that the government had implemented similar decisions in favor of other employees, and it would be arbitrary to treat Das 's case differently.

The court further observed that the Additional Chief Secretary's attempt to revise the earlier order during the pendency of the writ petition was impermissible and untenable in the eyes of law, as the authority had become functus officio (having fulfilled its function) after passing the initial order.

Decision

The court quashed the impugned order dated September 12, 2023 and directed the government to notionally regularize Das 's service retrospectively from February 20, 1992, without monetary benefit for the period from February 20, 1992, to February 14, 2016, and to extend the pecuniary benefit (including service and financial benefits) from February 15, 2016, the date of his joining as a Class-IV employee (peon). The court also held that the period from February 20, 1992, shall be taken into account for the purpose of continuity of service and pensionary benefits.