Illegally Continuing After Superannuation Entitles Validly Appointed Successor to Immediate Reinstatement and Backwages

The petitioner was appointed as an Aanganwadi Sahayaka in Village Hinotiya via an order dated 18.01.2018 after being ranked first in a merit-based selection process

This recruitment was initiated because Respondent No. 5 was set to retire on 01.01.2018 upon reaching 60 years of age

Respondent No. 5 challenged her age determination in a previous petition (W.P. No. 21325/2017), leading to a Medical Board report that placed her age between 55 and 60 years

Consequently, the petitioner’s appointment was stayed on 04.08.2018 to allow Respondent No. 5 to continue

Even under the revised medical timeline, Respondent No. 5 reached the age of superannuation on 01.01.2023

Despite this, the State respondents continued to allow Respondent No. 5 to work and refused to permit the petitioner to join

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to join the post of Aanganwadi Sahayaka following the final superannuation of the previous incumbent (Respondent No. 5)

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to backwages and consequential benefits for the period she was illegally denied work

The Court applied the principles of administrative law regarding superannuation and the validity of merit-based appointments

It specifically relied on the legal principle that an employee has no legal basis to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation (60 years) as determined by competent medical authorities

Furthermore, it applied the principle of accountability for state inaction, holding that if a recruitment process is validly concluded and a vacancy exists, the state cannot arbitrarily prevent the selected candidate from performing their duties

The Court observed that while the stay on the petitioner's appointment in 2018 was based on a judicial direction to verify the age of Respondent No. 5, that justification ceased to exist on 01.01.2023

The Medical Board’s own report established that Respondent No. 5 attained 60 years on that date; therefore, her continued employment thereafter was "without any legal basis"

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was a merit-listed candidate with a valid (though stayed) appointment order, her right to the post revived the moment the vacancy became absolute

The failure of the authorities to induct her past the retirement date of Respondent No. 5 was deemed an administrative lapse, justifying not only her reinstatement but also financial restitution

The Court ordered: (i) the immediate joining of the petitioner as Aanganwadi Sahayaka at Hinotiya; (ii) the payment of backwages to the petitioner effective from 01.01.2023, with the caveat that these wages be recovered from the "erring officer" responsible for the lapse; and (iii) the extension of all consequential benefits within three months, failing which 6% interest per annum shall apply