The Gauhati High Court has affirmed a foundational principle in service law: an illegal termination cannot extinguish a public servant’s right to back wages, service continuity, or pensionary benefits. When the state itself admits the termination was unlawful, it cannot later deny remedies by invoking technicalities or coerced undertakings. This judgment reinforces that administrative fairness and constitutional equity override procedural irregularities when the state is the wrongdoer.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Sonaswari Ramchiary, was appointed as a Stipendiary Teacher at Mushalpur Jr. Basic L.P. School on 04.12.1999 against a converted post sanctioned by Government Creation Letter No. EPG.567/91/105 dated 16.11.1991. Her initial appointment carried a fixed stipend of Rs. 900 per month, subject to successful completion of prescribed Junior Basic Training. She joined duty on 06.12.1999 and was subsequently released for training w.e.f. January 2002. Upon completion of the one-year in-service Primary Teacher’s Training, she secured a ‘B’ Grade certificate dated 09.04.2003 from the Basic Training Centre, Kokrajhar. Her service book was opened, and a GPF account was allotted. Her pay was regularized to the Assistant Teacher scale w.e.f. 12.03.2003.
On 23.06.2009, without any notice, inquiry, or opportunity of hearing, she was terminated from service. The termination order cited non-compliance with recruitment norms - lack of advertisement, absence of selection committee approval, no interview record, and lack of approval from the Board of Secondary Education. However, after internal verification, the termination order was found to be illegal and was withdrawn by the Joint Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), vide order dated 22.09.2015. The withdrawal was given prospective effect only, meaning no retrospective benefits were granted. Despite this, the petitioner resumed duties and continued working until 01.04.2022, when she was appointed as a Tutor at a fixed monthly pay of Rs. 10,800. She joined on 02.04.2022. On 14.07.2022, she was ordered to be regularized as Assistant Teacher in Brahmapur Bilai L.P. School, succeeding a deceased teacher. But after five days of reporting, she was barred from duty. The regularization order was subsequently cancelled on 27.07.2022 on the ground that she had accepted the Tutorship under an undertaking.
Key Facts
- Appointment as Stipendiary Teacher: 04.12.1999
- Joined duty: 06.12.1999
- Released for Junior Basic Training: January 2002
- Completed training and regularized to Assistant Teacher scale: 12.03.2003
- GPF account opened and service book maintained from 2003
- Illegal termination order issued: 23.06.2009
- Termination order withdrawn by BTC: 22.09.2015 (prospective effect only)
- Appointed as Tutor: 01.04.2022, joined on 02.04.2022
- Regularization order issued: 14.07.2022
- Regularization order cancelled: 27.07.2022
- Petitioner’s daughter diagnosed with cancer: prior to 2022
- Petitioner submitted undertaking to accept Tutorship under duress: April 2022
- No salary paid between 23.06.2009 and 01.04.2022
Procedural History
- 23.06.2009: Termination order issued without hearing
- 22.09.2015: Termination order withdrawn by BTC, but with prospective effect only
- 01.04.2022: Appointment as Tutor issued
- 02.04.2022: Petitioner joined as Tutor
- 14.07.2022: Regularization as Assistant Teacher ordered
- 27.07.2022: Regularization order cancelled
- 2023: Writ Petition (WP(C) No. 3529/2024) filed before Gauhati High Court
- 10.02.2026: Hearing concluded, judgment reserved
- 23.03.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that her termination was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice. She contended that since the termination order was withdrawn by the state itself, her service must be deemed continuous from 12.03.2003. She accepted the Tutorship under duress due to her daughter’s critical illness and could not negotiate terms. She sought restoration to her original post with all service benefits, including arrears from 23.06.2009.
Respondents: Admitted the termination was illegal but claimed the withdrawal was prospective only. They argued that her initial appointment was irregular, her GPF and service book were administrative accommodations, and her acceptance of Tutorship under an undertaking barred her from claiming past dues. They relied on the doctrine of “no work, no pay” and the binding nature of the undertaking.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Restoration to her original post as Assistant Teacher with effect from 23.06.2009
- Payment of all arrears of salary from 23.06.2009 to date of restoration
- Recognition of entire service period for pensionary benefits
- Setting aside of the cancellation of regularization order dated 27.07.2022
- Declaration that the undertaking given for Tutorship was void due to duress and unequal bargaining power
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (i) Whether a public servant whose illegal termination is withdrawn by the state is entitled to retrospective restoration and back wages, and (ii) Whether an undertaking given under duress to accept a lower post, while deprived of salary for years, can legally bar the claim for past service benefits.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel, relied on Sukhdeo Pandey v. Union of India (2007) 7 SCC 455 to argue that the doctrine of “no work, no pay” does not apply when the employee is prevented from working by the state’s illegal act. He cited Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 LiveLaw(SC) 341) to emphasize that the state cannot retain the benefit of service without payment. He invoked Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) 3 SCC 156 to contend that the undertaking given under duress, due to her daughter’s life-threatening illness and prolonged non-payment of salary, was unconscionable and void ab initio. He further relied on State of Assam v. Arunima Chetia (2016) 3 GLR 198 to establish that quantum meruit mandates payment for services rendered, regardless of appointment irregularities.
For the Respondent
Ms. B. Bora, learned standing counsel for BTC, argued that the petitioner’s initial appointment lacked statutory compliance - no advertisement, no selection committee, no approval. She contended that the withdrawal of termination order on 22.09.2015 was expressly prospective and did not revive past service. She relied on the undertaking signed by the petitioner to accept Tutorship as a valid waiver of past claims. She asserted that the petitioner had no legal right to salary before 01.04.2022 and that the state cannot be compelled to pay for unperformed duties.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that the termination order dated 23.06.2009 was admitted by the respondents themselves to be illegal. The withdrawal of that order on 22.09.2015, even if given prospective effect, could not erase the illegality of the act that had already occurred. The Court held that when the state unlawfully terminates a public servant, it cannot later deny the consequences of its own wrongdoing by invoking technicalities.
"If, as per its own affidavit of the respondent Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7, the termination order dated 23.06.2009 is found to be illegal and the same was withdrawn w.e.f. 01.10.2015, the petitioner has to be reverted to her earlier position before 23.06.2009. There is no doubt that had she not been terminated from service illegally, then she would have continued to discharge her duty. By the illegal termination order she was prevented from discharging her duty. And as such, denial of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 23.06.2009, and denying to join her to her original post and her subsequent appointment as Tutor w.e.f. 01.04.2022, all are illegal and arbitrary action of the state respondents."
The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on Sukhdeo Pandey, distinguishing it on facts: there, the employee had not reported for duty despite being reinstated. Here, the petitioner was actively prevented from working. The Court applied the principle of quantum meruit from State of Assam v. Arunima Chetia, holding that the state cannot retain the benefit of services rendered over 13 years without payment.
The Court then turned to the undertaking given for the Tutorship. It cited Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Writ Petition (C) No. 5286/2004 to establish that contracts entered into under unequal bargaining power, especially by public servants in dire financial need, are void as unconscionable. The petitioner’s acceptance of Rs. 10,800 per month as Tutor - while her regular pay would have been significantly higher - was not a free choice but a necessity to fund her daughter’s cancer treatment. The Court held:
"The contention of the respondent authorities, to the considered opinion of this court, cannot be accepted. The alleged undertaking cannot stand in the way of legitimate entitlement. Because of her unequal bargaining power and because of her compulsion to save her daughter alive, who is suffering from cancer, she has accepted the Tutorship with pay of Rs.10,800/..."
The Court concluded that the state’s conduct - illegal termination, non-payment for over a decade, and coercive use of undertakings - violated Article 14 and the principles of natural justice.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Gauhati High Court directed:
- The petitioner shall be restored to her original position as Assistant Teacher with effect from 23.06.2009
- All service benefits, including arrears of salary, shall be paid from 23.06.2009 until the date of restoration
- Her entire service period from 04.12.1999 shall be counted for pensionary and other benefits
- The cancellation of the regularization order dated 27.07.2022 is set aside
- The respondents shall complete all computations and payments within three months from receipt of the certified copy of this order
- The petitioner shall obtain and submit the certified copy within one week
What This Means For Similar Cases
Illegal Termination Cannot Be Washed Away by Prospective Withdrawal
- Practitioners must argue that any withdrawal of an illegal termination order must be treated as retrospective to restore the status quo ante
- The state cannot unilaterally limit the effect of withdrawal to prospective dates when the illegality is admitted
- Service continuity must be presumed from the date of illegal termination unless the state proves a lawful reason for interruption
Undertakings Under Duress Are Void Ab Initio
- Any undertaking signed by a public servant under financial distress, especially to secure minimal livelihood, is void under Brojo Nath Ganguly
- Courts will not enforce such covenants where the state exploits its superior position and the employee has no meaningful alternative
- Evidence of personal hardship (e.g., medical emergency, family dependency) strengthens the argument of unconscionability
Quantum Meruit Applies Even to Irregular Appointments
-
The state cannot retain the benefit of services rendered without payment, even if the appointment was technically irregular
-
Payment is not contingent on perfect compliance with recruitment norms when the employee has worked continuously
-
Arrears must be calculated based on the pay scale the employee would have received had the termination not occurred
-
Practitioners should always plead quantum meruit and unconscionable contract as alternative grounds in service disputes
-
Maintain detailed records of service, GPF entries, and correspondence to establish continuous service despite termination
-
In cases involving medical emergencies, document the financial compulsion to challenge the validity of undertakings
