Court holds that a candidate selected against a sanctioned post through statutory recruitment cannot later be treated as merely contractual; directs continuity of service benefits after nearly 26 years of work.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a person appointed against a sanctioned post through a proper recruitment process cannot later be downgraded into a contractual employee by subsequent orders, especially when the governing service rules do not permit such a classification. Allowing the writ petition filed by Pradeep Kumar, the Court quashed his termination order dated 09.05.2003 and directed the U.P. Sainik School Society to treat his service as continuous from his initial appointment in June 1999.
Justice Irshad Ali held that the petitioner had been selected against the sanctioned post of House Matron in the U.P. Sainik School, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, pursuant to an advertisement that invited applications for a regular vacancy and mentioned the prescribed scale of pay. The Court found that the advertisement did not state that the appointment would be contractual, ad hoc, or on consolidated wages. It further noted that the post of House Matron was part of the sanctioned establishment under the U.P. Sainik Schools (Ministerial Establishment) Service Rules, 1970.
The Court observed that the petitioner had been sponsored through the Employment Exchange, selected by the competent Selection Committee, and appointed by the competent authority. It rejected the respondents’ stand that he had always been a contractual employee, holding that repeated later descriptions of the engagement as “ad hoc” or “contractual” could not override the original statutory recruitment framework.
A key finding of the judgment was that Rule 20 of the 1970 Rules mandates payment of the prescribed scale of pay even to persons appointed substantively, officiatingly, or on a temporary basis. On that basis, the Court held that payment of consolidated remuneration to the petitioner was not legally sustainable. The Court also relied on the principle that an employee cannot be made to suffer for administrative lapses attributable to the employer.
The High Court further noted that the petitioner had continued in service for about 26 years, ultimately retiring on 08.10.2024 while the writ petition remained pending. It held that his long continuation, coupled with the sanctioned nature of the post and the original selection process, entitled him to pay-scale fixation, increments, allowances, and consequential retiral benefits. The Court directed that his pay be notionally fixed in the regular scale from the date of initial appointment, with arrears calculated after giving credit for amounts already paid.
The Court also ordered refixation of the petitioner’s last pay and pension, and directed the authorities to determine and release all consequential monetary benefits, including pensionary arrears, within stipulated time limits.
Bottom Line :
A person appointed to a sanctioned post through proper recruitment process cannot be retrospectively treated as a contractual employee merely by issuing subsequent orders describing the engagement as ad hoc or contractual. Statutory pay-scale and consequential service benefits must be provided if such an appointment is governed by statutory rules.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Sainik Schools (Ministerial Establishment) Service Rules, 1970 (Rules 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, Appendix I, Appendix II), Sections 6-N and 6-Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India
Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc id # 2980596
