Regularization of service relates back to the initial appointment date for computing financial benefits and arrears.

The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Mathematics at S.R.T. College, Dhamri, on November 18, 1979

Following the college's permanent affiliation and subsequent university reorganization, the Hon’ble Chancellor directed the absorption of the petitioner’s services

On October 23, 2008, the Vice-Chancellor absorbed the petitioner w.e.f. June 30, 1981

In 2012, the State Government fixed the petitioner’s pay scale but stipulated that actual financial benefits would only be admissible from February 29, 2008 (the date a post became vacant due to retirement), treating the prior period from February 28, 1982, as "notional"

During the pendency of this writ, the Director of Higher Education issued a corrigendum in 2019, unilaterally changing the petitioner’s regularization date from 1982 to 2008

The petitioner challenged the denial of actual arrears and the validity of the corrigendum.

1. Whether the State could legally restrict the petitioner’s financial benefits to "notional" status from 1982 to 2008 despite the valid absorption of his services w.e.f. 1981?

2. Whether a regularization of service relates back to the date of initial appointment for the purpose of computing benefits?

3. Whether the corrigendum issued by the Director, Higher Education, changing the date of regularization without a hearing or jurisdiction, was valid?

The court primarily applied the 1986 Statute for Regularization, specifically Paragraphs 4 and 5, which mandate that absorbed lecturers are entitled to increments and seniority from the date of their appointment or absorption

It further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in S. Sumnyan v. Limi Niri (2010) 6 SCC 791, which affirmed the principle from G.P. Doval v. Govt. of U.P. (1984) that regularization of service, once approved by a competent authority, relates back to the date of initial appointment regardless of initial procedural irregularities

The court rejected the State’s contention that benefits should be notional due to the lack of a sanctioned post until 2008.

It observed that the petitioner had been continuously and satisfactorily imparting education since 1979 and that the University had initiated the post-creation process as early as 1981

The court noted that the Chancellor—the supreme authority—had already directed the absorption w.e.f. 1981; therefore, the State could not take a contrary view to deny actual salary arrears

Regarding the 2019 corrigendum, the court found it legally unsustainable 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 authority to override the Chancellor’s orders

Applying S. Sumnyan, the court held that even if the initial appointment was deemed irregular, its subsequent approval by the competent authority meant that the entire length of service must be computed for financial benefits

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to actual arrears of salary from his initial date of regularization

The respondents were directed to calculate and pay the difference in salary arrears arising from the 5th and 6th Pay Revisions to the petitioner