Court directs State to grant pension and gratuity to Balkrishna Sharma, emphasizing principles of natural justice, legitimate expectation, and Article 14 protections against arbitrary termination.
In a landmark judgment dated September 14, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) delivered a significant verdict in the case of Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 1835 of 2012. The Court set aside a previous order terminating the appellant's employment on the ground that the post to which he was appointed no longer existed. The decision underscores the importance of recognizing long-term service and the legitimate expectation of government employees, especially in cases involving retirement benefits.
Balkrishna Sharma was appointed as a Junior Clerk in 1997 following a prescribed selection process against what was advertised as a substantive vacancy. Despite this, the State later contended that his appointment was temporary and against a leave vacancy, not a substantive post, leading to termination of service in 2000. The petitioner had served nearly 30 years by the time of retirement in 2026.
The Court examined whether the State's action of terminating employment due to the non-existence of the post after such prolonged service was justified. The petitioner relied on the principle of legitimate expectation and natural justice, emphasizing that once appointed against an advertised substantive vacancy and permitted to serve for decades, a right to retirement benefits accrued.
The Court referred extensively to recent Supreme Court precedents, notably the 2024 judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India, which condemned the misuse of temporary contracts and arbitrary termination of long-serving employees in government institutions. The bench also relied on the 2025 ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, which held that recruitment procedures must be transparent and non-arbitrary, and changes in recruitment rules or vacancies cannot be made retroactively to the detriment of candidates who rightfully gained employment under existing rules.
In its reasoning, the Court held that fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution guarantee fairness and prohibit arbitrary State action. The petitioner's appointment, selection, and service created a legitimate expectation that his employment was valid, and the State could not retract this right unilaterally after decades of service without violating principles of equity and natural justice.
Importantly, the Court distinguished that retirement benefits accrue based on length of service and are not contingent on the continued existence of the post. Denying pension and gratuity after nearly three decades of service would be unjust and inequitable.
Exercising extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court directed the State authorities to calculate and disburse all retirement benefits, including pension and gratuity, to Balkrishna Sharma within 30 days from the date of the order. The decision sets a precedent safeguarding long-serving government employees from arbitrary termination and denial of post-retirement benefits due to technical grounds such as post non-existence.
This judgment reinforces the legal safeguards available to public servants, affirming that long tenure and legitimate expectation cannot be ignored by administrative authorities. It sends a strong message against the casual use of temporary contracts to evade obligations towards employees and underscores the judiciary's role in upholding fairness and justice in employment matters.
Bottom Line:
Termination of employment on the ground of non-existence of post after almost 30 years of service - Principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation demand recognition of long tenure of service for grant of retirement benefits.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2978322
