Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Technician on an ad-hoc basis on March 19, 1985, following a selection process.
Source reference: p. 2Despite the ad-hoc nomenclature, he was granted a regular pay scale, dearness allowance, and subsequent benefits including Kramonnati and three time-scale pay upgrades in 2009, 2010, and 2015.
Source reference: p. 2He served for 39 years until his superannuation on July 31, 2024.
Source reference: p. 2Post-retirement, departmental recommendations for his regularization were made by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 4 to enable pension benefits, but no final decision was taken.
Source reference: p. 3The State opposed the petition, contending that ad-hoc service does not confer a vested right to regularization and that the petitioner approached the court only after retirement.
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether a person who served for 39 years on an ad-hoc basis but received a regular pay scale and periodic promotions is entitled to regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits post-superannuation
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 52. Whether the State can deny retiral benefits by citing the technicality of "non-regularization" despite the employee having rendered continuous service in a sanctioned post
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 7Law Applied
The court primarily applied the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which distinguishes between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments, mandating a one-time regularization exercise for qualified persons in sanctioned posts with over 10 years of service.
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 9The State cannot take advantage of its own wrong by denying pension to an ad-hoc employee who served for 30 years as held in The State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 12M.P. Higher Education Collegiate Rules, 1987, and the precedent in Sangeeta Saxena v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 26158/2022) regarding identical service conditions.
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 11-12Reasoning
The Court observed that there was no functional difference between the petitioner’s duties and those of a regular employee, as he earned regular increments and pay scales throughout his 39-year tenure.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Applying the Uma Devi standard, the Court found the appointment was "irregular" (not illegal), and the petitioner was duly qualified.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was granted a regular pay scale at the time of appointment in 1985, he effectively rendered regular service.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 12Citing Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, the Court held it "unreasonable" and contrary to the principles of a Welfare State for the respondents to extract work for nearly four decades and then deny pensionary benefits based on the technical absence of a formal regularization order.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 12Holding
The Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner must be treated as a regular employee from his initial date of appointment.
The Court directed the respondents to: (i) treat the petitioner’s service as regular and pensionable from March 19, 1985; (ii) grant all consequential and retiral benefits, including arrears of pension from July 2024; and (iii) issue the PPO and GPO within three months.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 13The Court awarded costs/compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner, with a default interest clause of 6% per annum for delayed compliance.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 13Original Court PDF
Matadeen SharmavsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in