2025 Supreme(Pat) 1461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.
CWJC Nos. 18289 with 6125 of 2015
(23.12.2025)
Madhwi Jha & Ors. ... Petitioners
(in both)
vs.
Patna University through its Registrar Patna University, Patna. & Ors. ... Respondents
(in both)

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 25F and 25G – Termination from service – Existence of alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction – Challenge raised by petitioner is not confined to a mere dispute relating to conditions of service – Grievance pertains to legality and validity of termination/disengagement itself, which is alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice, and issued without authority of law – Such allegations strike at very foundation of impugned action and raise issues of public law character, thereby attracting writ jurisdiction of High Court – Availability of remedy under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be said to be an equally efficacious remedy in facts of present case, where petitioner seeks judicial review of administrative action on constitutional and legal grounds – In such circumstances, relegating petitioner to an alternative forum would amount to denial of effective and immediate relief – Writ petition cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Writ Petition is maintainable. (Paras 22 to 25)

University Law – Termination from Service – Participation in strike of Employees' Union which culminated in a settlement and which was duly approved by Vice-Chancellor – Once such a settlement stood approved by competent authority, respondents were estopped in law from initiating or continuing any adverse action founded upon very conduct which stood condoned by settlement – Any termination based on participation in strike period, notwithstanding settlement, is contrary to binding understanding between parties and suffers from manifest arbitrariness – Even otherwise, participation in a strike, by itself, cannot automatically justify termination of service, particularly in absence of any finding of illegality of strike or misconduct attributable to petitioners – Any employee, whether daily wager or casual employee or permanent employee, if he is removed for having participated in strike, it tantamounts to alleging misconduct against the employee which necessarily requires that the employee should have been visited with show cause followed by charge-sheet and proper domestic enquiry – Impugned termination, having been effected without issuance of any charge-sheet, without affording opportunity of hearing, and without any enquiry, is procedurally infirm. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 25F and 2(oo) – Retrenchment – Termination of a daily wage employee, falls within ambit of retrenchment unless it squarely falls within statutory exceptions – If action is held to be retrenchment, strict compliance with mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act becomes a condition precedent to validity of such action – Non-compliance with Section 25-F renders retrenchment void ab initio and legally unsustainable – Termination of service, particularly one having civil consequences, must emanate from a competent authority through a lawful and reasoned order – Oral or telephonic instruction has no legal sanctity and cannot cure statutory mandate imposed by Section 25-F – Even assuming that impugned order is a termination simpliciter and non-stigmatic, same amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and having been effected without complying with Section 25-F, impugned termination is illegal, void ab initio, and unsustainable in eye of law. (Paras 32, 33, 34 and 35)

Labour and Industrial Law – Termination – Principle of "last-come-first-go" is an integral facet of fair labour practice and has consistently been applied to cases involving retrenchment or disengagement of daily wage, ad hoc, or temporary employees – Underlying rationale of principle is to ensure that senior employees are not arbitrarily singled out for termination while juniors are retained, unless cogent and demonstrable reasons exist to justify such deviation – There is no assertion that petitioners were junior-most, nor is there any material to suggest that her disengagement was necessitated due to abolition of post, lack of work, or administrative exigency – Absence of any such justification renders the action ex facie arbitrary – Even daily wage employees are entitled to protection against arbitrary State action – Compliance with Section 25-G is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard intended to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory retrenchment – Discontinuation of petitioners, in disregard of principle of last-come-first-go, while retaining similarly situated and junior daily wage employees, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. (Paras 37, 40 to 43)

Service Law – Termination – Embargo on appointments operates prospectively and regulates future engagements; it cannot be pressed into service to retrospectively justify disengagement of an employee who was already working, unless such disengagement is demonstrably linked to abolition of post or lawful reorganisation – In absence of such linkage, policy remains a general administrative instruction incapable of sustaining an adverse civil consequence – Respondents' reliance on State Government's embargo on appointments and outsourcing policy, as pleaded in their counter affidavits, does not legally justify or sustain impugned disengagement of petitioners, inasmuch as same is not shown to be a consequence of abolition of post or actual outsourcing of work. (Paras 49 and 51)

CWJC No. 6125 of 2015

Service Law – Regularisation – Engagement of petitioners cannot be characterised as a backdoor entry or an illegal appointment – Materials on record clearly establish that their initial engagement was preceded by issuance of an advertisement, consideration by a duly constituted Selection Committee, and approval of competent appointing authority [Vice-Chancellor] – Prolonged engagement against sanctioned posts, coupled with a fair selection process and absence of any fault on part of employees, creates a strong equitable claim for regularisation – Their continuation over decades, with knowledge and acquiescence of respondent-University, lends further legitimacy to their claim – Public authorities cannot exploit workers for years together and then deny them regular status by taking shelter under technical or policy objections – Reliance placed by respondents on executive cut-off dates, policy embargoes, and subsequent administrative instructions does not outweigh accrued rights and legitimate expectations of petitioners, particularly when such policies have not been applied uniformly and have been relaxed or bypassed in comparable cases – Petitioners to be reinstated in service – Writ Applications allowed. (Paras 14, 23, 26 to 30)