Entitlement to time-bound pay scales cannot be denied due to non-sanctioned posts if recruitment was lawful.

The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Assistant on 03.12.1979 against a vacant post at Kirodimal Government Polytechnic

His services were regularized, and he was granted the first time-bound pay scale (Samayman Vetanman) effective 19.04.1999

The petitioner retired on 30.04.2021 after completing 42 years of service

His claim for the 2nd and 3rd time-bound pay scales was rejected by the authorities via an order dated 12.04.2021 on the grounds that the post of "Lab Assistant" was not a sanctioned post within the setup of the Technical Education Department

The petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting that since he was recruited against a vacant post and granted the first pay scale without objection, the lack of a sanctioned setup cannot be held against him

1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in denying the 2nd and 3rd time-bound pay scales to the petitioner on the ground that his post was not included in the department's official sanctioned setup

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the inclusion of his post in the department’s setup for the purpose of granting service benefits

The Court applied the principle of administrative estoppel and the doctrine of fairness in service jurisprudence.

It held that if an employee is appointed in accordance with recruitment rules against a vacant post and serves their entire tenure until superannuation, the employer cannot retrospectively deny service benefits based on internal administrative lapses, such as the failure to formally include a post in a sanctioned "setup"

The Court observed that the petitioner had served for over four decades (1979–2021) without any objection from the respondent authorities regarding the status of his post

Crucially, the Court noted that the respondents had previously granted the petitioner the 1st time-bound pay scale in 2000, and at that juncture, no objection regarding the non-existence of a sanctioned post was raised

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was appointed according to the recruitment rules against a vacant post, he cannot be penalized for the department's failure to update its sanctioned setup

The Court found the rejection order dated 12.04.2021 unsustainable as it sought to deprive a retired employee of established service benefits based on a technicality that the state ignored for 42 years

It held that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the post not being in the sanctioned setup. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to Respondent No. 3 (Director of Technical Education) within 30 days. Respondent No. 3 is further directed to consider the claim for the 2nd and 3rd time-bound pay scales in light of the Court's observations within 90 days. The petition was disposed of with these directions.