Supreme Court quashes reversion order after 25 years, grants pensionary benefits: Sukh Bilash Thakur vs. Bihar State Electricity Board (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 09, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 16

Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Navin Sinha, J.

Can an employer suddenly revert an employee to a lower position after 25 years of service based on a claim of fraudulent appointment, when the employee was initially appointed after a due process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Sukh Bilash Thakur vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Others. The Court examined the legality of an order that reverted an employee, who had served for 25 years, to a lower position based on allegations of a fraudulent appointment. The Court held that the reversion order was unjust and unsustainable, granting the employee pensionary benefits. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

Sukh Bilash Thakur, the appellant, was appointed as a Bill Clerk on February 3, 1981, by the Bihar State Electricity Board. After serving for 18 years and passing the departmental examination, he requested a senior-level grade. However, on July 3, 2006, the respondents issued a show cause notice alleging that he had secured the appointment through fraudulent means and by suppressing the fact that he did not possess the required qualifications. The notice proposed his reversion to the post of Khalasi. The appellant replied on July 12, 2006, asserting his appointment was based on verification of his educational qualifications, a written examination, and an interview. He denied any fraud or suppression and stated there were no complaints against his performance as a Bill Clerk. Despite the appellant’s response, the respondents, without providing specific reasons, rejected his explanation and ordered his reversion on August 9, 2007.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court declined to interfere with the order of reversion, which led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The High Court did not consider the fact that the appellant was appointed after verification of his qualifications and through a competitive examination and interview. The High Court also failed to consider that the allegations were raised nearly 25 years after the initial appointment.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the principles of natural justice, fairness, and the reasonableness of administrative actions. It does not specifically cite any particular statute or section but operates within the broader framework of service law and administrative law. The core issue is whether the Bihar State Electricity Board acted justly in reverting the appellant after such a long period, based on allegations that were not substantiated and raised long after his initial appointment. The court also considered the principles of equity and fairness in its decision-making process.

Arguments

The appellant argued that his appointment as a Bill Clerk was done after due verification of his qualifications and through a competitive examination followed by an interview. He stated that there were no complaints against his work as a Bill Clerk. The appellant explained that at the time he appeared for the matriculation examination, mathematics was compulsory only up to class 9. He also highlighted that he had passed the departmental examination in service. The appellant contended that the show cause notice and the subsequent order of reversion were issued nearly 25 years after his initial appointment, only when he claimed a selection grade, which was unjust and arbitrary.

The respondents, on the other hand, alleged that the appellant had secured his appointment through fraudulent means by suppressing the fact that he did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post. They contended that the appellant was liable to be reverted to his original post. However, the respondents did not provide any specific evidence of fraud or suppression, and their actions were based on an apparent re-evaluation of the appellant’s qualifications after 25 years of service.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the delay of 25 years in raising the issue of qualification, which was not only unreasonable but also indicative of a lack of due diligence at the time of appointment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the order of reversion issued nearly twenty-five years after the initial appointment was just, equitable, and reasonable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case laws or legal provisions in this judgment. The decision is based on the principles of natural justice, fairness, and the unreasonableness of the administrative action taken by the respondents.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the order of reversion was unjust, inequitable, and arbitrary. The Court emphasized that the appellant was appointed after due verification of his qualifications and through a competitive examination and interview. There were no allegations against his performance as a Bill Clerk. The Court found the delay of 25 years in raising the issue to be unreasonable. The Court observed that the respondents seemed to have woken up from their stupor after 25 years when the appellant staked a claim for a higher grade. The Court set aside the order of reversion and directed the respondents to grant the appellant pensionary benefits as if the order of reversion had never been passed. The Court also directed that the pensionary benefits and other retiral dues be paid within eight weeks, with interest at 15% per annum until the date of actual payment.

The Court stated, “In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we consider the order of reversion issued nearly twenty-five years later to be highly unjust, inequitable and arbitrary suffering from the vice of unreasonableness.” The Court further added, “The impugned order of reversion is therefore set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with law as if the order of reversion had never been passed.” The Court also noted, “Pensionary benefits and other retiral dues shall be paid to him within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The dues shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent till the date of actual payment.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following points:

• The appellant’s initial appointment was made after due verification of his qualifications and through a competitive examination and interview, indicating a valid process was followed.
• There were no complaints or allegations against the appellant’s performance as a Bill Clerk during his 25 years of service, which suggested that he had been performing his duties satisfactorily.
• The respondents raised the issue of the appellant’s qualifications 25 years after his initial appointment and only when he claimed a higher grade, which the Court found unreasonable.
• The Court emphasized that the reversion order was unjust, inequitable, and arbitrary, highlighting the lack of fairness in the administrative action.
• The Court also considered the principles of natural justice, which require that administrative actions be fair and reasonable.

Key Takeaways

• An employer cannot revert an employee to a lower post after a long period of service (in this case, 25 years) based on allegations of fraudulent appointment, especially if the initial appointment was made after a due process.
• Administrative actions must be fair, reasonable, and timely. Delay in raising issues can be deemed unreasonable and unjust.
• Employees who have served for a long period without any complaints should not be penalized based on belated and unsubstantiated allegations.
• Courts will intervene to protect the rights of employees against arbitrary and unjust administrative actions.
• Employees are entitled to pensionary benefits if their reversion orders are set aside, and they are also entitled to interest on delayed payments.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall be entitled to pensionary benefits as if the order of reversion had never been passed. The Court also directed that the pensionary benefits and other retiral dues be paid within eight weeks, with interest at 15% per annum until the date of actual payment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an order of reversion issued nearly twenty-five years after the initial appointment, based on unsubstantiated allegations, is unjust, inequitable, and arbitrary. This case reinforces the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative actions and sets a precedent against belated actions by employers. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the case emphasizes the importance of timely and fair administrative actions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukh Bilash Thakur vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Others provides significant relief to the appellant by quashing the reversion order issued after 25 years of service. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of fairness, reasonableness, and timeliness in administrative actions and protects employees from arbitrary decisions. The judgment also highlights that employers cannot raise issues of qualification after such a long period, especially when the initial appointment was made after due process and there were no complaints against the employee’s performance. The appellant was granted pensionary benefits and interest on delayed payments, reinforcing the principle of justice and equity in service law.