SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 622

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Shamima Jahan, J.
Pabindra Kumar Das, S/O- Late Rajendra Kumar Das – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Education Department And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 142 of 2024
Decided On : 13-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr G Das
For the Respondent: Ms H Terangpi, Mr A Chaliha, SC, Ms S Chakraborty, Mr Sauradeep Dey

Utilizing services for a prolonged period, even without a sanctioned post, creates a legitimate expectation for remuneration. Non-payment for such services is unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights, necessitating that authorities consider representations for salary and regularization of long-serving employees.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Employment - Long-term service without sanctioned post - Entitlement to salary - Where an individual has rendered services for a significant duration, the non-payment of remuneration is violative of fundamental rights - Even in the absence of a sanctioned post, the utilization of services by the authorities creates a legitimate expectation for consideration of regularization and payment of dues. (Para 8)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Where an employee has served for an extended period, the authorities are obligated to consider representations for regularization and payment of salary, particularly when the service has been utilized for the smooth functioning of an institution. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the sanctioning of a post and regularization of services after working in a temporary capacity for over three decades. The petitioner was initially appointed against a leave vacancy and subsequently against a retired vacancy, receiving salary until a certain period, after which payments ceased despite continued service.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner had rendered continuous service for approximately 35 years. It held that the utilization of services without a sanctioned post does not absolve the authorities from the obligation to pay for the work performed, as non-payment for such a duration is unconstitutional.

Issues: Whether an employee who has worked for an extended period without a sanctioned post is entitled to salary and whether the authorities are obligated to consider a request for regularization.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the utilization of services for a prolonged period creates a legitimate expectation. Consequently, the authorities are directed to consider the representation of the employee for salary and regularization, as the denial of payment for services rendered is contrary to constitutional principles.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the authorities to consider the representation within one month.

Table of Content
1. historical factual background and nature of petitioner's service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. competing claims regarding regularization and sanctioned post requirements. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. evidence of continuous service and history of salary disbursement. (Para 7)
4. entitlement to payment for prolonged service rendered. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.

Heard Mr G Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms H Terangpi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr A Chaliha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, i.e., the Treasury Officer, and Ms S Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr Sauradeep Dey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 6.

2. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, be directed to sanction the Grade-IV post, and/or to hold the selection process to accommodate the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed temporarily in a Grade- IV post in Paschim Bonbhag High School, in the scale of Rs. 900/-Rs. 1435/- plus other allowances, against a leave vacancy and his appointment was made effective from 01.03.1991 to 31.03.1991. The petitioner also states that his appointment was extended from time to time and vide order dated 19th of April, 1991, the petitioner who was appointed in the said vacancy, was allowed to continue as Grade-IV employee in the same school. Thereafter, a resolution was passed by the Executive Committee of the said school, whereby it was decided to request the authority concerned for sanctioning a post in the Grade-IV, along with one post of Night Chowkidar. Thereafter, on 13th of June, 1994, the Principal of the said school appointed the petitioner against an honorary post and it was also stated in the said letter that petitioner, who has been working since 01.06.1991, would continue to work from that date. Thereafter, on the same day, i.e.,13th of June, 1994, the Inspector of Schools by a communication to the Director of Secondary Education, sent a proposal for sanctioning one Grade-IV post in the school. It was further stipulated in the said letter that since the school has been newly provincialized, only 3 (three) Grade-IV posts have been sanctioned and that another Grade-IV post may also be sanctioned for the interest of the school. The petitioner has stated that since his appointment in the year 1991 till the year of 2002, he was paid the salary against the leave vacancy and that vide order dated 6th of September, 2004, the petitioner, who was appointed on an honorary basis in the said school, was allowed to draw his salary against the retired vacancy and the monthly salary was paid to him as such. The petitioner, therefore, states that he was drawing his salary from 2002 to 2005, against the retired vacancy, but after 2005, he did not get any salary. Accordingly, he had made representations before the Inspector of Schools from 2017 onwards, praying for payment of his salary as well as to sanction his post in the said school and it is also stated that the Principal of the said school had forwarded the representation to the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, wherein, after stating the facts narrated above, a request was made by the Principal for payment of his salaries since 01.01.2006, with a further statement that Grade-IV post was lying vacant due to the retirement of the erstwhile employee. .

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was under the constant belief that since his services were utilized in the school he will be paid regularly and his services will be regularized. He also submits that the appointment of the petitioner can be termed as irregular, but not illegal and he has been continuing since the date of his temporary appointment till date, first few years on receiving the salary against the leave vacancy, and few years thereaf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top