The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle in public employment law: regularization of ad hoc or daily wage workers must be prospective in nature to protect the seniority rights of regularly appointed employees. This judgment resolves a recurring conflict between equity for long-serving temporary staff and institutional integrity in service hierarchies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Keshav Prasad Patra, was employed as an ad hoc worker at Government ITI Bastar and was regularized pursuant to a State Government circular dated 5.3.2008. He was formally appointed on 10.6.2013, but sought retrospective application of his regular status from the date of initial ad hoc engagement, seeking back pay and seniority benefits. His representation was rejected after a scrutiny committee found no entitlement under the circular.
Procedural History
- 2008: State Government issued circular for regularization of ad hoc workers.
- 2013: Petitioner was formally regularized with effect from 10.6.2013.
- 2018: Petitioner filed WPS No. 3090/2018, seeking immediate grant of regular pay scale after three years of service.
- 2018: This Court directed authorities to decide his grievances.
- July - August 2018: Scrutiny committee constituted; its report led to rejection of petitioner’s claim via orders dated 9.7.2018, 4.8.2018, and 10.8.2018.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought retrospective regularization from his initial ad hoc date, claiming entitlement to seniority, pay scale, and service benefits dating back to his first engagement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether regularization under a government circular entitles an ad hoc worker to retrospective seniority and back pay, or whether such regularization must operate prospectively to preserve the seniority of existing regular employees.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner had served continuously for over five years in an ad hoc capacity and had been formally regularized under a policy meant to reward long-term service. He contended that denying retrospective benefits was arbitrary and violated Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. He relied on equitable principles and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the 2008 circular explicitly stated that regularization would take effect only from the date of the regularization order, not prior dates. It cited binding precedents from the Supreme Court and this Court’s own Division Bench, emphasizing that retrospective regularization would disrupt established seniority lists and unfairly disadvantage those appointed through proper channels.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of the State’s circular dated 5.3.2008, particularly Part-B clause (viii), which unambiguously provided: "Ifji= tkjh gksus ds ckn iz’kkldh; foHkkxksa }kjk fu;fefrdj.k ds vkns’k ftl fnu tkjh fd;s tk;saxsa mlh fnukad ls gh fu;fer deZpkjh ekus tk;saxsaA iwoZ ds fdlh fnukad ls ughaA" - meaning regularization shall be effective only from the date of the order, not prior.
The Court then turned to binding precedent, notably Registrar General of India & Another v. V. Thippa Setty & Others (1998) 8 SCC 690, where the Supreme Court held that retrospective regularization would disturb the seniority of regular employees and is generally impermissible. The Court observed:
"Ordinarily the regularisation must be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely affected."
The Court also affirmed its own earlier decision in Madhav Prasad Sarathe & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, which had been upheld by the Division Bench. It emphasized that ad hoc workers are not subject to the same discipline or qualification norms as regular appointees, and granting them retrospective seniority would create inequity and administrative chaos.
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s reliance on equitable considerations could not override the clear statutory and policy framework, nor could it override the rights of those already in regular service.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that regularization under a circular must be prospective unless expressly stated otherwise, and retrospective seniority cannot be granted to ad hoc workers to protect the rights of regularly appointed employees.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Retrospective Regularization Is Presumptively Invalid
- Practitioners must now assume that any regularization order without explicit retrospective language operates prospectively.
- Claims for back pay or seniority from pre-regularization dates will fail unless the policy or order clearly permits it.
Seniority Protection Is a Legal Principle, Not Discretion
- Courts will not entertain equitable arguments to override seniority structures unless the policy itself mandates it.
- Public employers must ensure that regularization orders are drafted with precision to avoid litigation.
Ad Hoc Service Does Not Automatically Confer Entitlement
- Long service as an ad hoc worker, while commendable, does not create a vested right to regularization with retrospective effect.
- The burden lies on the claimant to prove that the governing policy explicitly allows for retrospective benefits - mere equity is insufficient.
