Condition Barring Future Claims in an Absorption Letter is Unenforceable as Opposed to Public Policy.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Technician on daily wages in 1987 at Ranchi Women’s College.

Her services were regularized/absorbed as Laboratory In-charge effective 01.07.2009.

Her absorption letter contained a restrictive condition: "Petitioner shall never claim for the post of Demonstrator".

Following Supreme Court precedents in Radha Krishna Jha and subsequent High Court directions to uniformly re-designate eligible Lab staff as Demonstrators (a teaching post), the University officially re-designated the Petitioner as a Demonstrator in 2021.

When the University sought pay-scale approval, the State objected based on the restrictive condition in the 2009 absorption letter.

Consequently, the University unilaterally withdrew her re-designation on 06.06.2024, treating her as a non-teaching Lab In-charge.

This resulted in her immediate retirement at age 60, whereas the retirement age for Demonstrators is 65.

Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, asserting that agreements contrary to law or public policy are unenforceable.

Central Inland Water Transportation Corp. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) to invalidate unconscionable bargains stemming from unequal bargaining power between employer and employee.

State of Punjab v. Dharam Pal (2017) and Hari Om Sharma (1998), which held that an undertaking by an employee to waive legal benefits or higher pay-scales in order to secure a post is against public policy and cannot be enforced by a "model employer" such as the State.

Radha Krishna Jha v. State of Bihar (2002), which finalized the right of Lab Technicians to be re-designated as Demonstrators.

The Court reasoned that the dispute regarding the re-designation of Lab staff to Demonstrators was settled by the Supreme Court and accepted by the State of Jharkhand; thus, the Petitioner held a vested legal right to the designation.

The University’s unilateral withdrawal of this status was deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Applying the 'Rule of Law', the Court found that the restrictive condition in the 2009 absorption letter was a product of "unequal bargaining power" where the Petitioner had no choice but to accept the term to secure employment.

Such a condition is "unconscionable" and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act as it forces an employee to waive rights granted by law.

Regarding the retirement age, the Court noted that since the Petitioner was legally a Demonstrator, her forced retirement at 60 was an "utter violation of principles of natural justice".

The Court rejected the 'No Work No Pay' argument because the Petitioner was "forced not to work" by the Respondent’s illegal order.

The Court quashed the Notification dated 06.06.2024. It directed Ranchi University to: (i) accept the Petitioner's joining as a Demonstrator forthwith; (ii) allow her to serve until the age of 65; and (iii) pay all arrears of salary from 06.06.2024 until the date of joining within 10 weeks. Failure to pay within the stipulated time attracts interest @ 6% per annum.