Skip to content 
Introduction
The judgment delivered by the Patna High Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2023 represents a compelling narrative of
institutional delay, administrative confusion, and ultimately, judicial
intervention to secure retirement benefits for a long-serving employee. This
case, centered around Subhash Thakur’s claim against L.N. Mithila University,
illuminates the complex intersection of employment law, university
administration, and the fundamental principle of fairness in public service.
The case spans over three decades, from 1990 to 2024,
chronicling the journey of a laboratory attendant whose employment status
remained in limbo for over two decades, highlighting systemic failures in
university administration and the persistent struggle for recognition of
service rendered in good faith.
Factual Matrix: A Tale of Administrative Confusion
The Genesis of the Dispute
The dispute originated in 1990 when Subhash Thakur began
working as Laboratory In-charge (Physics) at K.V.S. College, Uchhaith,
Benipatti, Madhubani, which later became a constituent college of L.N. Mithila
University. The government had sanctioned the post on March 9, 1990, but
remarkably, no attempt was made to conduct regular appointments to this
position until 2010 – a delay of twenty years that would prove central to the
entire controversy.
This delay created a peculiar situation where Thakur continued
to work in a position that existed officially but lacked formal appointment
procedures. Such administrative inertia is unfortunately common in Indian
educational institutions, where bureaucratic processes often lag behind
operational necessities.
The Classification Conundrum
When K.V.S. College was taken over as a constituent college
of the university on December 6, 1980, the administration created three
distinct categories of employees:
- B1
List: Employees working in duly sanctioned posts - B2
List: Employees working in non-sanctioned posts (which included
Thakur) - Principal’s
List: Additional appointments made by the college principal to ensure
uninterrupted college operations
This classification system, while administratively
convenient, created a hierarchy of employment security that would have lasting
consequences for affected employees. Thakur’s placement in the B2 list meant
his position was recognized as necessary but not formally sanctioned, creating
a legal grey area that would persist for decades.
The Regularization Rollercoaster
The university’s handling of regularization requests reveals
a pattern of institutional indecision that borders on the absurd. The
chronology of events reads like a case study in administrative confusion:
- September
1, 1992: Chancellor directed regularization of B2 list employees - October
17, 1992: The regularization order was kept in abeyance (suspended) - November
27, 1994: Regularization was again accepted, subject to reservation
rules - March
4, 1996: The university discovered that appointments were made before
posts were sanctioned, leading to further confusion
This pattern of decisions and reversals demonstrates the
institutional uncertainty that characterized the university’s approach to
employment regularization. Each reversal not only affected the employees’ job
security but also their long-term financial planning and retirement benefits.
Legal Proceedings: A Persistent Quest for Justice
The First Wave of Litigation (1996)
Thakur and similarly situated employees first approached the
court in 1996 through C.W.J.C. No. 6145 of 1996. The court’s decision on May 9,
1997, was significant for several reasons:
- It
definitively rejected claims for automatic regularization - It
directed the university to conduct regular appointments within six months - It
granted age relaxation to affected employees for the period they had
actually worked - It
established that the affected employees had legitimate expectations of
consideration for regular appointment
The judgment recognized that while the employees could not
claim regularization as a matter of right, they had earned certain protections
through their continued service.
The Second Round (2002-2010)
The university’s failure to implement the 1997 court order
within the stipulated timeframe led to fresh litigation in 2002 (C.W.J.C. No.
3377 of 2002). This case revealed the depth of institutional resistance to
change, as the university took five years to issue an advertisement that should
have been published within six months of the court’s direction.
The 2010 judgment again directed completion of the
appointment process, demonstrating the court’s growing impatience with the
university’s dilatory tactics. The repeated need for judicial intervention
highlights the disconnect between court orders and administrative
implementation in Indian educational institutions.
The Final Chapter (2021-2024)
Thakur’s retirement in 2016 after his regular appointment in
2012 should have concluded his association with the university. However, the
denial of pension benefits based on his pre-2012 service necessitated fresh
litigation in 2021. This final case would determine whether his decades of
service would be recognized for retirement benefits.
The Judicial Analysis: Balancing Law and Equity
The Single Judge’s Decision
The learned Single Judge’s initial decision was
comprehensive and employee-friendly. Key findings included:
- Continuity
of Service: Despite the lack of formal appointment, Thakur had
continuously served in the position from 1990 - Administrative
Delay: The university’s failure to conduct regular appointments for
twenty years was unjustifiable - Legitimate
Expectation: Thakur’s continuous service created legitimate
expectations of benefit recognition - Constitutional
Precedent: Reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Direct Recruit
Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, which
established that continuous service in substantive vacancies should count
for consequential benefits
The Single Judge ordered that Thakur’s entire service period
from March 9, 1990, should count for retirement benefits under the Old Pension
Scheme.
The Division Bench’s Modification
The Division Bench, while sympathetic to Thakur’s situation,
applied a more nuanced approach:
Key Legal Principles Applied
- Statutory
Interpretation: The court examined clause (14) of Section II of
Statute No. I of Bihar State Universities Act, 1979, which defines
“qualifying service” to include temporary or officiating service
followed by substantive appointment - Temporal
Limitations: The court recognized that prior to the 1997 judgment,
regularization had been specifically declined, making it inappropriate to
grant benefits from 1990 - Equitable
Adjustment: The court calculated that if the university had followed
the 1997 court order promptly, Thakur would have been regularly appointed
by November 9, 1997 (six months after the judgment)
The Modified Order
The Division Bench modified the Single Judge’s order to:
- Count
qualifying service from November 9, 1997 (instead of March 9, 1990) - Maintain
entitlement to Old Pension Scheme benefits - Apply
the Tarsem Singh principle for arrears calculation (limiting arrears to
three years prior to filing the petition)
This modification balanced the need to recognize Thakur’s
service while acknowledging the legal limitations imposed by earlier court
decisions.
Broader Implications and Legal Principles
Employment Security in Educational Institutions
This case highlights the precarious nature of employment in
educational institutions where administrative processes often lag behind
operational requirements. The creation of unofficial positions to meet
institutional needs, while practical, creates long-term legal complications
that affect employee welfare.
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
The judgment reinforces the principle that continuous
service, even in irregular appointments, creates legitimate expectations that
cannot be arbitrarily ignored. This doctrine serves as a crucial protection for
employees caught between institutional necessities and bureaucratic delays.
Judicial Pragmatism vs. Legal Formalism
The case demonstrates the tension between strict legal
interpretation and equitable considerations. While the Division Bench could not
ignore the legal reality that regularization had been specifically declined in
1997, it found a pragmatic solution by calculating service from the date
regular appointment should have occurred.
Administrative Accountability
The repeated judicial interventions needed to compel the
university to follow court orders reflect broader issues of administrative
accountability in Indian educational institutions. The case serves as a
cautionary tale about the costs of administrative inaction.
Conclusion: Justice Delayed but Not Denied
The Subhash Thakur case represents both the strengths and
weaknesses of the Indian judicial system in addressing employment disputes.
While the final resolution took over three decades, the court’s intervention
ensured that a dedicated employee’s service was ultimately recognized and
rewarded.
The judgment establishes important precedents for similar
cases, particularly the principle that administrative delays cannot
indefinitely prejudice employee rights. However, it also demonstrates the need
for systemic reforms in educational administration to prevent such protracted
disputes.
For Subhash Thakur, now in his retirement years, the
judgment provides both financial security and, perhaps more importantly,
official recognition of his decades of service. For the broader educational
community, it serves as both a warning about the costs of administrative
inaction and an assurance that dedicated service, even in irregular
circumstances, will not go entirely unrecognized.
The case ultimately reflects the Indian judiciary’s
commitment to balancing legal formalism with equitable considerations, ensuring
that technical defects in appointment procedures do not entirely negate the
value of honest service rendered in good faith. In this balance lies both the
complexity and the ultimate wisdom of the judicial approach to employment law
in the Indian context.
Read the full judgement Below;
MyM1NTQjMjAyMyMxI04=-aZ1wfpX5wtw=
