ANSHUMAN PRIYADARSHI vs STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY PR SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT

2026:JHHC:11395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI


W.P.(S) No. 4057 of 2018
….…..

1. Anshuman Priyadarshi, aged about 58 years, son
of Late Ambika Prasad Sharma @ A.P. Sharma, resident
of 5 Hill View Road, Northern Town Bistupur, P.O.
Sakchi, P.S. Bistupur, District-East Singhbhum at
Jamshedpur.
2. Amal Krishna Satyajeet, aged about 52 years, son
of late Ambika Prasad Sharma @ A.P. Sharma, resident
of First Floor, Anshu Sadan, Harihar Singh Road,
Bhanda Bagicha, P.O. & P.S. Morabadi, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..… Petitioner (s)
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary/Principal
Secretary, Higher Education and Skill Development
Department having office at Project Building, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.
2. The Ranchi University through its Registrar
having office at Kutchery Road, P.O. and P.S. Kotwali,
District-Ranchi.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University having
office at Kutchery Road, P.O. and P.S. Kotwali, District-
Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s)
….…..


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State: Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV
For the University : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Pratyush, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate
….…..
C.A.V. ON 09/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:18/04/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The original petitioner namely Usha Sharma had moved
before this Court with the prayer for payment of pensionary
benefits including pension, GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment
and other dues as the petitioner has superannuated from the
1

2026:JHHC:11395
post of Lecturer (History), Mandar College, Mandar w.e.f.
31.8.2009. The petitioner has also prayed for benefits of the
difference of 5th and 6th Pay Revision and also for absorption
of her services, inasmuch as, the petitioner has been appointed
before the cut off dated 30.4.1986 in the newly converted
constituent college.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the original petitioner
was appointed on the post of lecturer at Mandar College,
Mandar in Subject – History, on 29.06.1985. Considering the
row and confusion prevailing with respect to eligibility of
teaching and non-teaching staffs in the newly converted
constituent colleges, a three Member Committee was
constituted under the Chairmanship of Inter Universities Board
for examining and recommending the eligible appointees for
absorption.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a letter
dated 01.02.1988 (Annexure-1) was issued by the Human
Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar on
the basis of 3-Men Enquiry Committee Report, wherein it has
been mentioned that the original Petitioner had been appointed
on a sanctioned post and her name was placed at serial no. 3
as against the subject of History (Hons.).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted
that the then Department of Human Resource Development
2

2026:JHHC:11395
Department, Government of Bihar vide letter no. 181/C dated
18.12.1989 has forwarded a provisional list for absorption for
which approval from the University Service Commission had to
be obtained. In the said list also, the name of the Petitioner is
mentioned at serial no. 7 as against the subject of History
(Hons.).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted
that the original petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 22.6.1995;
however, she was reinstated in service vide a notification dated
04.10.1998 and it was held that her termination had been
illegal and the period between the date of termination and the
date of reinstatement was treated to be an extra-ordinary leave.
7. The matter of absorption of the teaching and non-teaching
employees on the basis of their eligibility travelled upto the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098/1997 and vide
order dated 12.10.2001 an Enquiry Commission under Shri
Justice S.C. Agrawal was constituted.
8. The reference before the Justice Agarwal Commission is
being reproduced as under: -
(i) How many sanctioned posts of teacher and non-teaching
employees were there in the 40 colleges which were converted
into constituent colleges pursuant to the sanction letter dated
19.8.1986?

(ii) How many proposals with regard to creation of post for
teachers and non-teaching staffs had been submitted to the
Education Deptt. or the University before the cut off dated i.e.
30.4.1986?
3

2026:JHHC:11395
(iii) How many teachers and non-teaching employees seeking
absorption in the constituent colleges were not appointed
through selection made by the Commission and whether they
possess the basic qualification?
(iv) How many teaching and non-teaching employees could be
entitled for absorption on the basis of govt. letter dated
19.8.1986?
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the
Paragraph-10, 12, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63 and 64 of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Bihar Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and
others, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 had contended that the
order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the then H.R.D. Department
of the Government of Bihar, whereby the State Govt. had been
directed for temporary absorption of employees against posts
sanctioned and recommended by the Committee, subject to
certain terms and conditions, had not been the subject matter
of reference before Justice Agrawal Commission.
10.
The petitioner had further argued that the stand of the
State of Bihar & Jharkhand questioning the validity and
authenticity of the order dated 1.2.88 and 18.12.1989 was held
not acceptable.
11. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon the notification of the
Ranchi University dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure-16), and had
submitted that in pursuance to the resolution of the Syndicate
held on 19.11.2005, the names of the teaching and non-
teaching staffs working in the newly converted constituent
4

2026:JHHC:11395
colleges against the posts not available in same college though
available in other constituent colleges were forwarded for
regularization. The said list also included the name of the
petitioner at sl. no. 8 and she had been directed to be absorbed
in the vacant post of English.
In the said list, the name of one Nirmala Prasad appears
at sl. no. 7, who was also a lecturer in Political Science but was
regularized in English.
It has also been submitted that the Retired Justice S.C.
Agrawal Commission had also directed the University to take a
decision in the matter of absorption of appointees named in
list-II of the report of the committee being appointees against
post for which recommendation was sent by the University to
the State Govt.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had again appointed Retd.
Justice S.C. Agrawal to enquire into the matter of absorption of
left over teaching and non-teaching employees, who had
declined; whereupon on 19.08.2013, Retd. Hon'ble Mr. Justice
S.B. Sinha was appointed as one-Man Commission. The
petitioner has approached Hon’ble Retd. Justice S.B. Sinha
ventilating her grievances wherein the case history of the
original petitioner was presented by the University wherein it
has been mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on
5

2026:JHHC:11395
sanctioned post. The said stand of the University has been
brought on record by way of Annexure-14.
13. The Hon'ble Retd. Justice S.B. Sinha Commission vide its
order dated 18.3.2015 has rejected the claim of the original
petitioner as time barred, for the reason, the Commission has
no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing claim petition.
It has further been argued that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 2703/2017 dated 31.08.2017, had
further given liberty to the cases of the incumbent not found fit
for acceptance by the Commission to approach and contest the
matter before their respective High Courts, if they so desire.
14. The Respondent-State filed its counter affidavit; wherein it
had been stated that the services of the original petitioner has
not been absorbed by the University. Ld. Counsel for the State
had relied upon the letter dated 9.10.2018 (Annexure-B to the
counter affidavit) to contend that since the services of the
original petitioner have not been absorbed, the benefits of
permanency cannot be extended to them.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits
that the number of sanctioned posts in the Department of
History, Mandar College were 6 and as against the said post
absorption of 6 Lecturers whose names find mentioned in
Annexure-IIIA and IVA has been made and due to non-
availability of further sanctioned post, the services of the
6

2026:JHHC:11395
original writ petitioner has not been absorbed. It has also been
mentioned that since, the petitioner has not been absorbed in
Ranchi University, she is not entitled for payment of retiral
dues and she has already been paid her provident fund amount
of Rs. 46,581/-.
16. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original
petitioner Usha Sharma had died on 19.5.2020 and she was
substituted by her legal heir/son claiming the monetary
th
benefits arising from the difference from the salary under 5
th
and 6 Pay Revision and also the retiral dues to which the
original-petitioner would have been entitled.
Now after going through rival contentions and pleadings
on record, the issue for consideration that arises before this
Court is that “whether the original petitioner Usha Sharma was
entitled for absorption and consequently for payment of the
benefits of the pay revision and the pensionary dues” .
17. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, it
appears from the judgment in the case of State of Bihar Vrs.
Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (Supra) that the issue
in relation to legality of appointment of the teaching and non-
teaching staffs had not been subject matter of consideration
before the Justice Agrawal Commission. The relevant extract of
the judgement is being reproduced.
“60. The validity and authenticity of the two orders dated 01.2.1988 and
7

2026:JHHC:11395
18.12.1989 of the State Government were not questioned before the High
Court in the writ petition filed by the employees of the converted constituent
colleges. Question on their validity was raised only before the one-member
Enquiry Commission of Shri Justice S. C. Agrawal [Retd.]. On the question of
validity of the order dated 01.2.1988, the Enquiry Commission delved into
the notings in the government files and found that the Education Minister
had recorded in one of the files that the Cabinet in its meeting held on
22.6.1988 had authorized the Chief Minister to take a decision in that
regard. According to the Commission, the order dated 01.2.1988 is duly
authorized order of the State Government and this fact is evident from the
subsequent Resolution No. 307 dated 08.3.1988, which is duly authenticated
order issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar. The subsequent
Resolution formally issued in the name of Governor is a sequel to the order
dated 01.2.1988 and does not disturb it.
61. So far as the order dated 18.12.1989 of the State Government
directing absorption of employees against posts sanctioned and
recommended by the Committee, the Commission did not go into that
question stating that it was subject matter for decision before this Court in
the present pending appeal.
62. Since the validity and authenticity of the two orders dated
01.2.1988 and 18.12.1989 were not raised before the High Court and were
raised for the first time before the Commission, we decline to go into them.
The joint stand taken on behalf of the State of Bihar and the State of
Jharkhand before this Court, deserves to be rejected.
63. That apart the Commission has taken note of the fact that the
order dated 01.2.1988 was followed by a formal Resolution No. 307 dated
08.3.1988 which was duly authenticated order issued in the name of
Governor of Bihar and did not disturb the order dated 01.2.1988. It is a
resolution formally taken and expressed in the name of Government of Bihar
in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India to give effect to the
order made on 01.2.1988.
64. So far as the order dated 18.12.1989 is concerned, the State
being the author of that decision merely because it is formally not expressed
in the name of Governor in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India,
the State itself cannot be allowed to resile or go back on that decision. Mere
change of the elected government does not justify dishonouring the decisions
of previous elected government. If at all the two decisions contained in the
orders dated 01.2.1988 and 18.12.1989 were not acceptable to the newly
elected government, it was open to it to withdraw or rescind the same
formally. In the absence of such withdrawal or rescission of the two orders
dated 01.2.1988 and 18.12.1989, it is not open to the State of Bihar and
State of Jharkhand [which has been created after reorganization of the State
of Bihar] to contend that those decisions do not bind them.”

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon
the judgment passed in the case of Akhilanand Singh Vrs.
State of Bihar, reported in (2018) SCC Online Pat 1573 to
contend that in terms of letter no. 181C wherein the name of
the original petitioner appears, the University was under
8

2026:JHHC:11395
obligation to absorb them and restore the status of absorbed
employee. The Counsel for the petitioner relied upon para-35
and 42 of the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in
identical circumstances and arising from the same and related
transaction. The relevant paragraphs 35 and 42 are being
reproduced herein.
“35. In matters where the name of individual teaching and
nonteaching employee figures in the provisional list of absorption
contained in letter no. 181C, 38C and 36C and so far as the nonteaching
employ7ees 25C are concerned, the University was required to recognize
their cases as eligible for absorption in view of the judgement in
Mahasangh’s case and the University was required to issue appropriate
notification in the light of the letter no. 181 A, 38C, 36C and 25C and as
such the Court does not approve the action of the University in reviewing
the notification of absorption taken by the University if supported by the
report of Justice Agarwal Commission, Judgement in Mahasangh’s Case,
letter no. 181(C), 38(C) and 25(C).
42. The respondent-University is directed to restore the petitioner
the status of absorbed employee in terms of the original decision of
absorption and notification considering the fact that the name of the
petitioners figure in the letter No. 181(C).”

19. This Court in the case of Ravi Bhushan Prasad Amar
Vrs. The Stat of Jharkhand vide its judgement dated
01.12.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7360/2017 has considered
the status of the Government decision as contained in letter no.
181(C) at paragraph-10, 11 and 12 and has held under:-
“ 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that this Court in a
catena of decisions in similar cases has decided the issue. In W.P. (S) No.
6491 of 2017 and W.P. (S) No. 6503 of 2017, this Court has observed as
under:-
Para 18- “… with reference to the government decision dated
18.12.1989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court negated the objection of the
State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand that letter no. 181C is not
the governmental decision as it was not authenticated in terms of
Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
categorically held out that the letter dated 18.12.1989 is the
reflection of the governmental decision and it cannot be impeached
on the ground that the said letter was not authenticated in terms of
Article 166 of the Constitution and there is no cabinet decision and
accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the letter no. 181C as
a governmental decision."
9

2026:JHHC:11395
Para 20-" In view of the statements made in the writ petition, it is
manifest that two vacant posts are available for absorption of those
teaching employees as it has been indicated that vacancy created in
the Department of Commerce in A.B.M. College, Jamshedpur on
retirement of Sri S.K. Mishra and on transfer of Sri D.K. Mitra. The
Hon’ble Patna High Court in Akhilanand Singh & Ors. Vs The State
of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 reported in 2018 (3)
PLIR 1029) came to the following conclusions:….
Para 21- "As a cumulative effect of the discussion made above and
in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as
Patna High Court, the respondent-University is directed to absorb
the petitioners and render the status of absorbed employee in terms
of the original decision of absorption and notification considering the
fact that the name of the petitioners figure in the letter no. 181 (C)."
Para 22-" it is needless to say that once the University takes
favourable decision on the claim of the petitioners, the University
will work out for the entitlement and request the State Government
for grant of additional fund so that the consequential monetary
benefit may be extended to the petitioners."
11. In yet another case, this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4173 of 2013 – Prof.

Goverdhan Mehta v. State of Jharkhand & Others, has held in paragraph
10 as under:-
“ 10. In the backdrop of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
issue is no longer res integra and it is the University alone which is
competent to confirm/regularize the services of the employees of the
newly converted constituent colleges and since the University has
already, as far back as in the year 1997, confirmed the appointment of
the Petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English at
Marwari College, no further exercise is required to be undertaken for
regularization/confirmation of the services of the Petitioner. It is an
admitted fact that the Petitioner had been duly discharging his services
on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English and, in fact, after
serving for almost 40 years, the Petitioner has already superannuated
from service on 31.08.2020. It is also an undisputed fact that the
Petitioner all along has been paid his salary, but in the unrevised pay
scale and the benefit of revision of pay-scale pursuant to 5th, 6th and 7th
UGC revised pay-scale has not been extended to the Petitioner. The said
benefit has not been extended to the Petitioner on the pretext that services
of the Petitioner were not regularized. Reliance placed by the State
Government upon the Judgment of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav & ors. (supra)
Vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2001) 2 PLJR 817, for denying the
benefit of revision of pay-scale is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case. In this case, services of the Petitioner have
already been regularized on 29.05.1997 (Annexure-9) by the Respondent-
Ranchi University and, thus, the said decision would not be applicable in
the case of the Petitioner. Apart from that, the aforesaid decision of
Division Bench of the Patna High Court has already been referred to a
larger Bench for re- consideration and, further, coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh (supra), has already
distinguished the ratio of the said Judgment in the case of similarly
situated employees.”

12. It is an admitted case, the services of the petitioner were regularized by the
State Government vide Notification No.181/C dated 18.12.1989 (Annexure-5);
which letter has never been rescinded and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be
deprived of the said benefits.
It is also an admitted position that the petitioner continued in service since the
date of her joining i.e. 05.07.1985 till the attainment of age of superannuation
i.e. 31st January 2023 and during the entire period, the petitioner was paid her
salary, though at the unrevised scale. The respondents having taken work from
the petitioner and thus cannot deny her the benefits of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay
Revisions. Similarly, the respondent cannot deny payment of retiral dues to the
original-petitioner after having taken work from her for about 38 years.”
20. Further, in the case of Mahakant Jha Vrs. State of
10

2026:JHHC:11395
Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2019 , this Court has the
occasion to consider the status of the employee (teaching/non-
teaching) mentioned in Letter No. 181(C) dated 18.12.1989 and
has held that since the letter has nowhere been rescinded,
therefore, the petitioners therein are entitled for absorption.
21. Learned counsel for the University, Mr. A.K. Mehta, has
relied upon the judgment dated 16.8.2024 passed in W.P.(S)
No. 1088/2018 , wherein the claim of absorption of the
petitioner has been rejected. The judgment dated 16.8.2024 is
distinguishable in the facts that Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha
has dismissed the claim of the petitioner, however, with respect
to the original-petitioner whose name figured in Letter No.
181(C), there has been no such adjudication/recommendation
either by the Retd. Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission or by the
Retd. Justice S.B. Sinha Commission.
It is imperative to mention here that objection of the
validity and authenticity of the Letter dated 1.2.1988 and
18.12.1989 as raised by the State of Bihar and Jharkhand has
been rejected and the Commission has taken note of the fact
that the State being the author of the decision could not have
resiled or go back on that decision. The State has further not
withdrawn or rescinded the same and from the wordings of the
letter no. 181(C) it is apparent that the same has been issued
after considering the recommendations of a committee with
11

2026:JHHC:11395
certain stipulation with respect to the eligibility and
prescription of minimum mark.’
22. This Court also finds that the Ranchi University, Ranchi
vide its notification dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure-16), which has
been issued in pursuance to the decision of the Syndicate has
proposed to regularise the teaching employees against the posts
not available in the college but available in other subject within
the college. In the said list the name of Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala
Prasad figures at Sl. No. 7 and the name of Dr. (Mrs.) Usha
Sharma figures at Sl. No. 8 who has been sought to be adjusted
against the subject English, inasmuch as, post was available
and nobody was working against the said post. The nature of
the post available with respect to Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala Prasad and
the original petitioner had been II(A).
23. This court also finds from the synopsis of the case history
as submitted by the respondent University before Retd. Justice
S.B. Sinha Commission, which is at Annexure-15 that the
petitioner had been appointed on 2.7.1985 by the General Body
and she possessed the qualification at the time of conversion. It
has been recommended at Clause No. 17, 19 and 22 in the
following manner:-

12

2026:JHHC:11395

Furthermore, the University has identified the nature
of post to be II(A) and in view of the judgement in the case of
State of Bihar Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh
and others (Supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court has concluded in
the following manner: -
“73….
Conclusions
1. The Judgment of the High Court, to the extent of the interpretation placed by
it on the provisions of Section 4(1)(14) and Section 35 with the directions issued
in paras 24 to 26 therein, is hereby confirmed for the reasons recorded by us
above.
2. The report of the Commission of Enquiry of Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal
(Retired), is accepted and all objections filed against the said report are rejected.
3. The member of the staff in various affiliated colleges identified and named in
the List(i) being appointees against the sanctioned posts shall be issued by the
universities concerned.
4.
The universities shall take a decision under Section 4(1)(14) of the Act in the
matter of absorption of appointees named in List (ii) of the report of the
Commission, being appointees against posts for which recommendations were
sent by the universities to the State up to the cut-off date in accordance with the
decision of the State Government conveyed in its letter dated 19.08.1986
followed by letters dated 25.08.1986 and 12.06.1987.

In considering the question of absorption of appointees named in the List (ii)
of the report of the Enquiry Commission, the Universities concerned shall
rely on the contents of the report of the Enquiry Commission and the present
judgment of this Court.
5. The appointees mentioned in the List (iii), being the appointees against
posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State
Government after the cut-off date or those working against posts for which no
recommendations were sent for approval of the State Government, have no right
of being considered for absorption; whatever may be the fortuitous
circumstances or otherwise in the matter of not sending recommendations for
sanction in their cases. The negative report of the Enquiry Commission with
regard to List(iii) is accepted and the Universities are directed to exclude all
such appointees named in List(iii) from consideration for absorption.
6. A large number of objections to the report of the Enquiry Commission filed
before us by associates of employees and individuals pertain to the alleged
lack of prescribed qualifications for the post on which they are working. All
13

2026:JHHC:11395
those objectors have not been recommended for absorption in the report of the
Enquiry Commission. Decision in individual cases, with due regard to the
qualification of each employee and corresponding statute applicable at the
relevant time prescribing qualifications, if any, for the teaching and non-
teaching posts, shall be taken by the universities based on the findings in the
report of Justice Agrawal Commission and in the light of the legal position
explained above.”

24. In view of the above, particularly when in the matter
of absorption, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held
that it is the University which has the last say in the matter of
absorption of appointee in List-II and when the University has
proposed for the absorption of the original petitioner, she is
th th
entitled to the benefits of the 5 and 6 Pay Revision and also
all the consequential benefits including the retirement benefits
at par with the regular employees.
25. This Court though finds it unusual that the name of
the original petitioner has been recommended for absorption in
other subject but from the pleading it has surfaced that the
same has been done in pursuance to the resolution of the
Syndicate and similarly situated teacher namely Dr. Nirmala
Prasad had also been extended the said benefits and hence, the
original petitioner could not have been discriminated.
It has been pleaded by the petitioner that Dr. Nirmala
Prasad parity with whom the original petitioner has been
seeking has been regularised in other subject and the Retd.
Justice S.B. Sinha Commission has also approved the same.
26. This Court further finds that the original petitioner
14

2026:JHHC:11395
had been appointed on 2.7.1985 i.e. prior to the cut-off date
being 30.4.1986 and her name was recommended in letter no.
181(C) and also by the University vide its notification dated
29.11.2005, then it clearly appears that for the laches on the
part of the respondent authorities, the order of absorption of
this petitioner could not be issued and hence, she continued to
th
be paid the salary of Lecturer under 4 Pay Revision and
ultimately she superannuated w.e.f. 31.8.2009 and by then she
had worked for more than 24 years.
It is very surprising that in a case where the respondent
University had to issue a formal order of absorption, they had
unnecessarily delayed the matter and had taken a contradictory
stand in the counter affidavit that in absence of the order of
absorption, the original petitioner cannot be allowed the
retirement benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
State of Gujrat Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel,
case of
reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 2004 , has held in the
following manner.
“ 1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the
respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that
as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled
to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the
benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years
continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but
unreasonable le. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have
taken such a stand. ”
27. In any view of the matter, the respondents cannot
15

2026:JHHC:11395
take advantage of their own wrong in not absorbing the services
of the original petitioner and hence, the respondent University
is directed to declare the status of the petitioner as absorbed in
terms of the decision as contained in letter no. 181(C) and also
in the light of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.
Mahasangh and others (Supra), which has been considered
by this Court in catena of cases viz. Akhilanand Singh Vrs.
State of Bihar (Supra), Ravi Bhushan Prasad Amar Vrs.
The State (Supra) and also in the case of Mahakant Jha
(Supra).
28. The respondent University, who has taken
continuous work from the original petitioner from 1985 to 2009
is directed to adjust the petitioner as an absorbed employee
th th
and allow the benefits of 5 and 6 Pay Revision to the
petitioner and release the same with consequential arrears. The
University is also directed to pay retirement benefits including
pension till the date of death of the original petitioner and also
other benefits like gratuity, leave encashment to the legal heirs
of the ex-employee/ original petitioner.
29. Accordingly, this Court holds that the original -
petitioner is entitled for the benefits of pay revision and pension
like a regular employee and as such the respondents are
directed to do needful by issuing formal order of absorption of
16

2026:JHHC:11395
the original petitioner and to work out the entitlement of
monetary claim of the original petitioner within a period of ten
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order and request the State Government for grant of additional
funds so that the consequential monetary and retirement
benefits are extended to the present petitioners.
30. Consequently, the instant application stands allowed
and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A.s, if any
also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:18 /04/2026
Amardeep/
N.A.F.R

Uploaded on
21.04.2026




17