Patna, Feb 25 (NationPress) In a landmark decision concerning the absorption of employees after the acquisition of educational institutions, the Patna High Court on Wednesday asserted that the employment of individuals active at the time of the school's takeover cannot be invalidated solely because their positions were not formally authorized or listed among the sanctioned roles.

The High Court mandated the regularization of the petitioner's employment and the settlement of all outstanding payments, emphasizing that employees with long-standing service cannot be stripped of their rightful benefits.

A single bench led by Justice Ajit Kumar, while reviewing the writ petition brought forth by Sunil Kumar, determined that the intent and legislative goal of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, is explicit and unambiguous, indicating that individuals employed on the date of acquisition are legally deemed absorbed into government service.

The petitioner's attorney, advocate Lalan Kumar, presented that Sunil Kumar had been appointed as a clerk-cum-librarian back in 1982 and had consistently performed his duties uninterrupted until the State government took control of the school on March 31, 1991.

He also mentioned that an inspection report from March 15, 1997, had formally validated the petitioner's employment status, and that numerous similarly situated employees had already received regularization and benefits from the State authorities.

Denying the same advantages to the petitioner, the counsel argued, constituted arbitrary discrimination and infringed upon the constitutional guarantee of equality as outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Representing the State government, Prabhakar Jha (GP-27) contended that the petitioner's role was not part of the officially sanctioned list and claimed that the appointment was made during a time when a government ban on such hires was in effect.

However, the Court dismissed the State's claim, labeling it a mere technicality, and remarked that after allowing an employee to serve for decades, the State cannot withhold legitimate service rights and benefits based on technical or procedural issues.

The High Court accordingly instructed the State authorities to remit salary arrears and retirement benefits to the petitioner up until October 29, 2012, and mandated that this process be finalized within three months from the receipt of the Court's order.

In a separate yet equally significant ruling issued the same day, the Patna High Court made strong remarks regarding the integrity and fairness of departmental inquiries while reinstating a dismissed government clerk.

A single bench presided over by Justice Vivek Chaudhary delivered the ruling while considering Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1051 of 2025, filed by Pradeep Kumar Pandit, who served as an additional clerk in the Goghri subdivision office located in Khagaria district.

The petitioner had been dismissed from his position in 2015 following departmental proceedings linked to an alleged bribery incident, recorded as Vigilance Police Station Case No. 33/2014.

However, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on September 4, 2025, after the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations against him.

Advocate Rajiv Nayan, representing the petitioner, argued that no witnesses were called during the departmental inquiry and that the charges brought against the petitioner were not substantiated by legally admissible evidence.

He further asserted that the dismissal was based solely on the registration of an FIR and the petitioner’s arrest, which cannot be regarded as conclusive proof of guilt under established service law principles.

The High Court reiterated that while departmental proceedings are guided by the preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, they still require a minimum standard of credible evidence and proper witness examination.

Making determinations without examining witnesses or providing supporting evidence, the Court noted, violates the principles of natural justice and is legally untenable.

Consequently, the High Court annulled the dismissal order against the petitioner and instructed that if the petitioner had not yet reached the age of retirement, he must be reinstated within three months.

The Court further ordered that the petitioner shall receive full salary, maintain continuity of service, and enjoy all associated benefits resulting from his reinstatement in accordance with relevant service regulations.