Regularization of service by competent authority relates back to the initial appointment date for all consequential financial benefits.

The original petitioner, Ram Bharosa Prasad Singh (substituted by his son, the present petitioner, upon his death), was appointed as a Lecturer in Mathematics at S.R.T. College on 02.09.1981

Following the College's permanent affiliation and university bifurcation, the Hon’ble Chancellor directed the Vice-Chancellor to absorb the petitioner’s services

Consequently, a notification was issued in 2008 absorbing his services w.e.f. 02.09.1981

In 2012, the State fixed the petitioner’s pay scale but stipulated that actual financial benefits would only be admissible from 12.06.2008, treating the period from 1981 to 2008 as "notional"

The State argued that no post was sanctioned in the college until a vacancy arose in 2008

During the pendency of the writ, the Director of Higher Education issued a corrigendum in 2019 unilaterally changing the petitioner’s regularization date from 1982 to 29.02.2008

1. Whether the State could legally restrict actual financial benefits to 12.06.2008 while regularizing the petitioner’s service from 1981/1982

2. Whether the corrigendum dated 27.02.2019 changing the date of regularization was valid and within the authority of the Director of Higher Education

The Court primarily applied the Statute for Regularization dated 29.01.1986, specifically Paragraphs 4 and 5, which mandate that absorbed lecturers shall draw increments from the date of absorption or 01.01.1981, whichever is earlier

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in S. Sumnyan v. Limi Niri (2010) 6 SCC 791, which established that the regularization of a person’s service by a competent authority relates back to the date of their initial appointment for all service computations, even if the initial appointment procedure was irregular

The Court noted that the petitioner's services were validly absorbed by the University under the direction of the Chancellor w.e.f. 02.09.1981

It held that the State’s defense—that benefits should be notional because no post was sanctioned—was untenable because the petitioner had continuously and satisfactorily discharged his duties

The Court observed that once the 1986 Statute (Paras 4 and 5) provided for increments from the date of appointment, the State could not take a contrary view to deny actual arrears

Regarding the 2019 corrigendum, the Court found it legally void as it was issued without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard (violating natural justice) and because the Director of Higher Education lacked the legal authority to override the Chancellor’s orders

The Court quashed Paragraph 1 of the letter dated 15.08.2012 (restricting financial benefits) and the corrigendum dated 27.02.2019

The respondents were directed to calculate and pay the actual arrears of salary to the petitioner based on the 5th and 6th Pay Revisions from the initial date of regularization/appointment rather than treating it as notional

The writ application was allowed