Decades of Unpaid Service Finally Reach the Courts

In a ruling that could reshape how educational institutions handle long-serving staff, the Gauhati High Court has directed Assam’s Secondary Education Department to consider the plea of a Grade-IV employee who devoted nearly 35 years to a provincialized school without ever holding a formally sanctioned post.

From Temporary Appointment to Decades of Continuity

Pabindra Kumar Das was first brought on board in March 1991 at Paschim Bonbhag Higher Secondary School, Nalbari, to fill a short-term leave vacancy in the Grade-IV cadre. His appointment was repeatedly extended, and by 1994 the school’s managing committee sought formal sanction for the position. Although he briefly drew salary against a retired employee’s vacancy between 2002 and 2005 , payments ceased thereafter. Despite repeated representations, Das continued working—first in the Grade-IV role and later as a mid-day-meal cook—right up to December 2025 .

The central questions before the single judge were straightforward: can an authority continue to utilise an individual’s labour for decades and then deny even basic pay merely because the post was never formally sanctioned? And does such prolonged engagement create any enforceable expectation of regularisation ?

Opposing Stances Clash Over Regularisation

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr G Das , argued that the appointment, though initially irregular, could not be labelled illegal. Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and the recent Jaggo v. Union of India , he contended that continuous utilisation of services for 35 years entitled the worker to at least salary arrears and sympathetic consideration for regularisation.

The State, represented by Ms H Terangpi , countered that no selection process had ever been undertaken and that allowing the petition would bypass statutory rules. The school’s managing committee similarly maintained that Das had been engaged only on an honorary basis after 1994 and therefore possessed no legal right to a sanctioned post.

Constitutional Compass Guides the Bench

Justice Shamima Jahan cut through the technical objections by invoking a settled constitutional principle. The Court emphasised that when services are utilised for an extended period, denial of salary is not merely an administrative lapse—it amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation of livelihood under Article 21 . The judgment noted that the petitioner’s case had been forwarded by the school principal to the Inspector of Schools , yet no decision had followed, fuelling a legitimate expectation.

Crucially, the Court distinguished between regularisation (which still requires due process ) and the immediate obligation to pay for work already performed:

Voices from the Judgment

“It is no longer res integra that if a service is utilised by the authority concerned even without a sanctioned post, the basic salary, i.e., the payment has to be made to the employee concerned. Non-payment is considered to be unconstitutional and in violation of the fundamental rights .”

“In the instant case, the petitioner has worked for almost 35 years in service to the school. As such, his payment cannot be denied.”

“Although the petitioner is no longer in Grade-IV post and he is working as a Cook in the said school, his case should be considered since he has worked in the Grade-IV post for long 35 years.”

Fresh Opportunity, Time-Bound Mandate

The writ petition was disposed of with a clear direction: Das must submit a fresh representation accompanied by a copy of the order, and the competent authority in the Secondary Education Department must examine his case within one month. While the Court stopped short of directing automatic regularisation, it left little doubt that prolonged unpaid service cannot be wished away.

Legal observers see the order as reinforcing a growing judicial trend that prioritises equity and constitutional morality over rigid procedural formalism in service matters—especially where the worker has no realistic bargaining power.