Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Binod Kumar Rai, Son of Late Parmeshwari Rai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher & Technical Education – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 5091 of 2023
Decided on : 10-07-2026
For the Appellant :Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, A.C. to G.P.-I Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.
Reinstatement following illegal termination mandates the restoration of ‘status quo ante,’ entitling the employee to consequential benefits, including back wages and seniority based on the initial appointment, while ensuring administrative actions remain free from prejudiced findings unsupported by a fair departmental process.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Termination of service - Mandatory requirement of departmental proceedings - Principles of natural justice - Adherence to statutes requiring formal inquiry prior to termination. (Para 13, 26)
(B) Consequential Benefits - Reinstatement of service - Concept of ‘status quo ante’ - Entitlement to back wages and seniority upon finding of illegal termination - Deduction of honorarium earned during the period of absence from back wages - Pay-fixation based on original appointment date rather than date of joining. (Paras 33, 39, 41)
(C) Administrative Law - Bias and procedural fairness - Quashing of prejudicial observations - Administrative bodies cannot pre-judge issues of competency without conducting a fair, neutral, and prescribed inquiry process. (Paras 28, 29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a senior lecturer at an affiliated institution, faced illegal termination without formal departmental proceedings. Despite subsequent reinstatement, the administrative authority denied back wages, pay-scale parity, and included derogatory comments about the petitioner's professional capabilities in the order. The petitioner sought relief regarding back wages, seniority adjustments, and the expungement of prejudiced observations.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the termination was illegal for failing to follow due process. Finding the petitioner victimized by prolonged litigation, the court ordered 75% payment of back wages, excluding interregnum earnings. The court further directed the correction of salary structures based on the original date of appointment and quashed the baseless, prejudicial remarks made by the administrative authority.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages and seniority post-illegal termination; whether the administrative decision to fix pay from the date of joining is discriminatory; and whether prejudicial observations concerning professional ability are sustainable without proof.
Ratio Decidendi: Reinstatement requires the restoration of the ‘status quo ante,’ entitling the employee to all consequential benefits, including incremental pay and seniority. Administrative bodies violate natural justice when they issue prejudicial findings without an inquiry or supporting evidence.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and the timeline of illegal termination challenges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding back wages and salary parity. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. the lack of departmental proceedings renders termination prima facie illegal. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. quantum of back wages determined by mitigating factors during unemployment. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 5. right to status quo ante and entitlement to pay-scale parity upon reinstatement. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner filed the instant writ application for following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 1140 dated 05.04.2019 (Annexure- 12), wherein although the Petitioner has been directed to be reinstated in service in the capacity of Lecturer, but, no further direction has been given to make payment of the consequential benefits including arrears of salary, seniority, etc. despite the fact that in the said impugned order, it has been itself held that the Petitioner has been illegally terminated from service.
(ii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent-University and Respondent-College to pay salary of the Petitioner in the pay-scale which is being paid to similarly situated Lecturers in Respondent No.-5 College, especially because Petitioner is the senior most Lecturer of the College including arrears of salary for the period Petitioner was illegally not allowed to discharge his duties.
(iii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 1140 dated 05.04.2019 to the extent observations have been made in the said order against the Petitioner disentitling the Petitioner for being appointed on the post of Principal In- charge for Respondent-Langta Baba College.
3. The present case has got a chequered history, where Petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court for the 9th time. Facts of the case are as under.
4. Petitioner, initially, being founder Member of Langta Baba College, Baba Gram (for short ‘the College’) was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Political Science vide Appointment Letter dated 21.12.1989. The said College is an affiliated College of Vinoba Bhave University (a Deemed University).
5. Being the senior-most Lecturer of the College, Petitioner was made In-charge Principal, and, after death of Founder Secretary of the College namely, Shradha Nand Prasad, there was no Governing Body for proper management of the College and, accordingly, Vinoba Bhave University, vide its Notification dated 21.02.2002, constituted an Ad-hoc Committee for the College for its governance.
6. It is the case of Petitioner that being Principal in-charge of the College, he took steps for removal of irregularity/illegality prevailing in the College which led to resentment against him, and, Ad-hoc Committee vide its meeting dated 2nd September, 2002, removed the Petitioner from the post of Principal-cum-Professor In-charge of the College. Said decision was challenged by Petitioner by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5618 of 2002 (1st Petition), wherein this Court, vide order dated 22.11.2002, directed the Vice-Chancellor of Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh to determine the question as to who was the senior-most teacher of the College and who should be the Professor In-charge of the College?
7. On 08.04.2003, Respondent-Vice Chancellor although recognized that Petitioner was senior-most teacher of the College, but still held that Petitioner was not entitled to be made Professor In charge in view of allegations levelled by Ad-hoc Committee against him. In the said order, Ad-hoc Committee itself was directed to investigate the charges leve
