Patna: In a significant ruling related to employee absorption following the takeover of educational institutions, the Patna High Court on Wednesday clarified that the services of employees working at the time of school takeover cannot be denied merely on the ground that their posts were not formally sanctioned or included in the approved list of positions.
The High Court directed the regularisation of service and payment of all pending dues to the petitioner, observing that eligible employees cannot be deprived of their lawful service benefits after long years of continuous employment.
A single bench of Justice Ajit Kumar, while allowing the writ petition filed by Sunil Kumar, held that the intent and legislative objective of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, is clear and unambiguous, and that employees who were working on the date of takeover are deemed to have been absorbed into government service by operation of law.
Counsel for the petitioner, advocate Lalan Kumar, argued before the Court that Sunil Kumar was duly appointed as a clerk-cum-librarian in 1982 and had been continuously discharging his duties without interruption when the school was taken over by the State government on March 31, 1991.
He further submitted that an inspection report dated March 15, 1997, had officially confirmed the petitioner’s service status, and that several similarly placed employees had already been granted regularisation and service benefits by the State authorities.
Denying the same benefit to the petitioner, the counsel argued, amounted to arbitrary discrimination and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Appearing on behalf of the State government, Prabhakar Jha (GP-27) contended that the petitioner’s post was not part of the formally approved list of sanctioned posts and further argued that the appointment had allegedly been made during a period when a government ban on such appointments was in force.
However, the Court rejected the State’s argument, terming it a mere technical objection, and observed that after allowing an employee to serve continuously for decades, the State cannot deny legitimate service rights and benefits on technical or procedural grounds.
The High Court accordingly directed the State authorities to pay arrears of salary and retirement benefits to the petitioner up to October 29, 2012, and ordered that the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
In another important and separate judgment delivered on the same day, the Patna High Court made strong observations regarding the conduct and fairness of departmental inquiries and ordered the reinstatement of a dismissed government clerk.
A single bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary passed the order while hearing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1051 of 2025, filed by Pradeep Kumar Pandit, who was working as an additional clerk in the Goghri subdivision office in Khagaria district.
The petitioner had been dismissed from service in 2015 following departmental proceedings initiated in connection with an alleged bribery case registered as Vigilance Police Station Case No. 33/2014.
However, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on September 4, 2025, after the competent court found insufficient evidence to sustain the charges against him.
Advocate Rajiv Nayan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that no witnesses were examined during the departmental inquiry proceedings and that the charges levelled against the petitioner were never established through legally admissible evidence.
He further submitted that the dismissal order was passed solely on the basis of registration of an FIR and the petitioner’s arrest, which cannot be treated as proof of guilt under established principles of service law.
The High Court reiterated that although departmental proceedings operate on the principle of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, such proceedings must still be supported by some minimum level of credible evidence and proper examination of witnesses.
Drawing conclusions without examining witnesses or producing supporting evidence, the Court observed, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the dismissal order passed against the petitioner and directed that if the petitioner has not yet attained the age of superannuation, he must be reinstated in service within a period of three months.
The Court further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to full pay, continuity of service, and all consequential benefits arising from reinstatement in accordance with applicable service rules.
(IANS)
