Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that the State, as a model and welfare employer, cannot terminate the services of an employee after nearly three decades solely on the ground that his initial appointment was irregular, particularly when there is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct. In Kalyan Singh Pawar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP No. 20363 of 2017) [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 283], Justice Deepak Khot quashed the termination of an employee whose services were cancelled after about 28 years of continuous service and directed the State to regularise his appointment on an appropriate post meant for direct recruitment, even if such regularisation resulted in a lower pay scale.
The petitioner was appointed in 1985 as a Daftari in the Town and Country Planning Department after being sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Initially engaged on daily wages and later appointed on an ad hoc basis for six months, his tenure was repeatedly extended over the years. In 1990, the State regularised his services through a government notification along with several similarly placed employees. Thereafter, he continued in uninterrupted service, received revisions in pay, was included in the gradation list, granted the benefit of the Second Time Pay Scale in 2010 and was eventually promoted as Assistant Grade III in 2015.
However, after nearly three decades of service, the department issued a show-cause notice alleging that his original appointment as Daftari was irregular because the post was a promotional post under the applicable recruitment rules and therefore could not have been filled through direct recruitment. Following consideration of his reply, the department cancelled his regularisation and terminated his services in 2017. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the legality of the termination order.
The case raised an important question concerning the rights of long-serving employees whose appointments may have suffered from procedural irregularities but who continued in service for decades with the full knowledge and approval of the employer. It also required the Court to examine the obligation of the State as a welfare employer and the applicability of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner contended that his appointment had never been obtained through fraud, concealment or misrepresentation. He submitted that he was duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was initially appointed on daily wages before being granted an ad hoc appointment by the competent authority. His services were thereafter extended continuously, and the department itself regularised his appointment through a government notification issued in 1990.
It was argued that throughout his service career the department consistently recognised him as a regular employee. He was granted annual service benefits, pay revisions, inclusion in the gradation list, financial upgradations and eventually promotion to the post of Assistant Grade III. At no stage during these several decades did the authorities question the legality of his appointment or initiate any action against him.
The petitioner further submitted that the show-cause notice was issued only after directions passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in another matter requiring scrutiny of certain appointments. According to him, the authorities mechanically relied upon those directions without considering his long and blemish-free service or the absence of any wrongdoing on his part.
It was also contended that even assuming there was some procedural defect in the initial appointment, such irregularity was entirely attributable to the appointing authority and not to the petitioner. Therefore, after permitting him to serve for nearly thirty years and extending every consequential service benefit, the State could not suddenly terminate his employment on the basis of an irregularity committed by its own officers.
The State defended the termination by contending that it had merely complied with the earlier directions issued by the High Court requiring examination of irregular appointments. It was submitted that after issuing a show-cause notice and considering the petitioner’s explanation, the department found that his initial appointment violated the applicable recruitment rules.
The respondents relied upon the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Evam Gramin Niyojan (Chaturth Shreni) Seva Bharti Niyam, 1978, under which the post of Daftari was classified as a promotional post. Since the rules did not permit direct recruitment to that post, the petitioner’s appointment was contrary to the statutory recruitment framework. The State argued that an appointment made in violation of the recruitment rules could not be allowed to continue merely because the employee had remained in service for a long period.
The respondents therefore maintained that the termination order was legally justified and consistent with the applicable service rules governing appointments in the department.
Court’s Judgment:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the termination order, holding that the action of the State was legally unsustainable in the peculiar facts of the case.
Justice Deepak Khot observed that although the petitioner’s initial appointment may have been procedurally irregular, the record clearly demonstrated that the authorities themselves had accepted his services for nearly twenty-eight years without objection. The department had repeatedly extended his tenure, regularised his appointment, granted him financial benefits, included his name in the gradation list and promoted him to a higher post. These actions reflected the State’s consistent acceptance of his employment throughout his service career.
The Court attached considerable importance to the fact that there was absolutely no allegation that the petitioner had secured his appointment by practising fraud or making any false representation. The irregularity, if any, was entirely attributable to the appointing authority. The Court further noted that even the officials responsible for making the appointment had never been subjected to any departmental proceedings, making it unjust to penalise the employee alone after several decades.
The Bench emphasised that the State functions as a welfare employer and must act fairly towards its employees. It observed that removing an employee after nearly three decades of sincere service would be harsh, arbitrary and inconsistent with the principles governing public employment. Instead of terminating his services, the authorities ought to have explored the possibility of regularising him against a suitable post available for direct recruitment and adjusting his pay and service conditions accordingly.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which recognises that long years of continuous service rendered by employees appointed on ad hoc or irregular basis deserve consideration while framing appropriate measures for regularisation, particularly where the employees are not guilty of any fraud or manipulation.
The High Court clarified that the present case did not involve an illegal appointment secured through deception. Rather, it concerned an employee who had served the department honestly for almost three decades under appointments repeatedly approved by the Government itself. In such circumstances, the equitable principles recognised in Uma Devi supported a humane and practical solution instead of termination.
Accordingly, the Court held that the termination order dated October 18, 2017, could not be sustained in law. It quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to regularise the petitioner’s services against an appropriate post meant for direct recruitment. The Court also clarified that if such regularisation required adjustment to a lower pay scale corresponding to the direct recruitment post, the authorities would be at liberty to do so in accordance with law.
The judgment reinforces the principle that while public appointments must ordinarily conform to statutory recruitment rules, the State cannot ignore decades of continuous service rendered by an employee who acted in good faith and whose appointment remained unquestioned for years. It underscores that administrative fairness, equity and the welfare obligations of the State require authorities to adopt corrective measures such as regularisation wherever legally permissible instead of imposing the harsh consequence of termination after an employee has devoted the better part of his working life to public service.