Back
:
In a significant ruling that underscores the equitable principles underlying service law, the has held that the right to retirement benefits accrues from the length of service rendered by an employee and is not attached to the post held. The Division Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Siddharth Nandan directed the to pay pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits to Balkrishna Sharma, a Junior Clerk whose services were terminated in 2000 on the ground that his appointment was against a .
A 30-Year Wait for Justice
The case of Balkrishna Sharma began in 1997 when two general category posts of Junior Clerk were advertised. After clearing the written examination and interview, Sharma was placed second in the select list and issued an appointment letter on . He joined service and worked without any complaint for three years. However, on , his services were abruptly terminated after a report from the Chief Accountant revealed that he had been appointed against a leave vacancy created by one Smt. Pratima Saxena. The State argued that one of the two advertised posts had been filled by a on , and the other by the candidate at serial number one, leaving no substantive vacancy for Sharma.
Sharma challenged his termination before a Single Judge, who dismissed his in , holding that mere selection does not confer an . He then filed an .
The Core Principle: Service Over Post
The Division Bench observed that no corrigendum was issued to the advertisement, and the State had proceeded to select and appoint Sharma. The court noted that Sharma had a that his service would be treated as permanent, given that he had undergone the rigors of a regular selection process.
Drawing from the 's judgment in
Jaggo v. Union of India
(2024), which highlighted the exploitation of temporary employees and arbitrary termination after long years of service, the court found a striking similarity in the present case.
"There is much similarity, in effect, even when Termination is on the ground of non-existence of the Post; and this practice undermines the
and subjects workers to a state of insecurity, regardless of the quality and duration of the service,"
the court observed.
The bench further emphasized that the . Citing Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025), it reiterated that recruiting bodies must follow a transparent and non-arbitrary procedure, and once a candidate is selected and appointed, a accrues.
Court's Reasoning: and
The court noted that Sharma was due to retire on , having served almost 30 years without any complaint. It held that after retirement, the question of the 'post' loses its importance, and the examination must be confined to the right to retirement benefits based on the length of service.
"The accrual of the right to the retirement benefit is by virtue of the length of service and it is not attached to the post; and as such after taking service for almost 30 years, the denial to the retirement benefit, will be in-equitable,"
the court stated.
Exercising its under , the court set aside the Single Judge's order and directed the respondent authorities to calculate and release Sharma's retirement benefits, including pension and gratuity, within thirty days from the date of service of the certified copy. The appeal was allowed with these directions, bringing closure to a nearly three-decade-long struggle for justice.
