Service Benefits Cannot Be Claimed Based on Forged Appointment Letters or Fraudulent Entry into Service

The appellant claimed he was appointed as a Peon on 26.06.1998 by the District Education Officer, Bhojpur.

After failing to receive salary, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 1451 of 2006, which was dismissed in 2008 with a direction to the Secretary, HRD Department to conduct an inquiry into the genuineness of his appointment.

The inquiry report (14.07.2008) concluded that the appellant’s appointment letter was a forged and manufactured document and that he had never actually joined service.

The appellant participated in the inquiry but never challenged the report.

In 2023, the appellant filed a second writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 3015 of 2023) seeking the same reliefs, relying on a 2006 Civil Court decree in a title suit where he was not a party.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to arrears of salary based on a claim of appointment found to be forged by a fact-finding inquiry.

2. Whether the findings of a Civil Court decree in Title Suit No. 266 of 1994 are binding on the High Court regarding the validity of the appellant's appointment.

The court applied the principle that fraud and justice cannot coexist, citing Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others (2003).

The court relied on the Full Bench decision in Rita Mishra and others v. Director Primary Education, Bihar (AIR 1988 Patna 26), which established that the right to salary and service benefits is a statutory right that flows exclusively from a legally valid and validly executed appointment; if the initial appointment is tainted or non-existent, no rights to salary accrue.

The court reasoned that the issue of salary was concluded by the 2008 inquiry report, which attained finality as the appellant failed to challenge it for over fifteen years despite participating in the proceedings.

The court rejected the appellant's reliance on Title Suit No. 266 of 1994 because the appellant was not a party to that suit, and the decree therein appeared to be based on admissions by State officials rather than evidence, which contradicted the specific findings of forgery made by the Principal Secretary under the High Court’s previous directions.

The court emphasized that the appellant had resorted to falsehood and suppressed the High Court's earlier orders during subsequent administrative representations.

Since the appointment was found to be a "manufactured/forged document," no legal relationship of employer-employee ever existed.

The Court found no illegality in the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, confirming that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.