Eligible employees listed in Letter 181/C are entitled to deemed absorption and consequential pensionary benefits.

The original petitioner, Usha Sharma, was appointed as a Lecturer in History at Mandar College on June 29, 1985, prior to the college's conversion into a constituent unit of Ranchi University

Following the conversion, a three-member committee recommended her for absorption against a sanctioned post, as reflected in Government of Bihar letters dated February 1, 1988, and December 18, 1989 (Letter No. 181/C)

Though terminated in 1995, she was reinstated in 1998 after the termination was declared illegal

Despite serving for over 24 years until her superannuation on August 31, 2009, and the University proposing her regularization in a vacant English post in 2005, her formal absorption remained pending.

The University contended that lack of sanctioned posts in History and a time-barred claim rejection by the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission (2015) precluded her benefits

The petitioner died pendente lite in 2020 and was substituted by her legal heirs

1. Whether the original petitioner, Usha Sharma, was entitled to legal absorption in service and consequently entitled to the benefits of the 5th and 6th Pay Revisions and pensionary dues.

The court primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh, (2005) 9 SCC 129, which held that the State cannot resile from decisions contained in letters dated February 1, 1988, and December 18, 1989 (Letter 181/C), regarding the absorption of employees in constituent colleges

It further applied the principle from State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, (2022) SCC Online SC 2004, establishing that the State cannot take advantage of its own wrong by denying pensionary benefits to an employee who rendered long-term continuous service on an ad-hoc basis

The court also noted the University’s statutory authority under Section 4(1)(14) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act to take a final decision on absorption for candidates named in "List-II" of the Justice Agrawal Commission report

The court observed that the University’s own records and case history submitted to the Commission confirmed that the petitioner was qualified at the time of conversion and was appointed against a sanctioned post

It noted that Letter No. 181/C, which included the petitioner's name, was never rescinded and remained a binding governmental decision as per the Mahasangh precedent

The court found the University's failure to issue a formal absorption order to be a result of administrative laches, especially since a similarly situated employee (Dr. Nirmala Prasad) had been regularized in a different subject—a parity the petitioner was entitled to

The court reasoned that since the University extracted work from the petitioner for 24 years, it was legally and equitably estopped from denying her the status of an absorbed employee and the resultant pay revisions and retiral benefits

The court directed Ranchi University to issue a formal order of absorption and calculate the monetary entitlements, including arrears from the 5th and 6th Pay Revisions

The University is further ordered to release all retirement benefits, including pension (until the date of death), gratuity, and leave encashment, to the legal heirs within ten weeks