Illegal Entry Can’t Earn Legal Benefits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bars Counting of Ad-Hoc Service After Reinstatement

“To equate service gained through backdoor appointment with lawful entry would be to violate Articles 14 and 16” –  In a critical verdict reinforcing the principle that illegal appointments cannot be legitimised retrospectively, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that ad-hoc or work-charged service rendered pursuant to an illegal appointment cannot be counted for seniority, pay fixation or promotion—even if the employee is later reinstated with full back wages following an Industrial Tribunal award.

Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa allowed the Regular Second Appeal filed by the Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., reversing the judgments of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court, which had erroneously treated the reinstatement order as sufficient to count the prior illegal service for career benefits.

“Back Wages Do Not Mean Continuity of Legal Service” – Court Separates Reinstatement From Seniority Benefits

The Court ruled that merely because the Industrial Tribunal, in its award dated 12.02.1990, directed reinstatement with full back wages to two clerks—Jaswant Singh and Jaljeet Singh—whose services were terminated in 1977, it does not imply continuity of lawful service or entitlement to reckon their earlier ad-hoc tenure for seniority or promotional benefits.

“Grant of reinstatement with back wages does not automatically confer right to count ad-hoc service for seniority or promotion when initial appointment itself was illegal and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,” the Court clarified.

Justice Nalwa further emphasised that absence of an express direction granting continuity of service in the Tribunal’s award precludes the Court from presuming such continuity.

“Appointment Dehors the Rules Cannot Be Counted for Seniority”: Illegal Entry Disqualifies Retrospective Benefit

The High Court underscored a vital distinction in service jurisprudence: an illegal appointment—i.e., one made in violation of statutory rules by an incompetent authority—is not merely irregular, but void.

Here, the clerks had been appointed by the Manager, though the competent authority was the Managing Director. No advertisement was issued for the posts, and appointments were made without following due recruitment process, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16.

“Initial appointment of respondents was not legal... adhoc period rendered cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority, pay fixation or promotion.”

Supreme Court Precedent Reiterated: Unequals Cannot Be Treated Equally

The judgment relies heavily on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in
Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, which held:

“If an appointment is made by way of a stop-gap arrangement, without considering all eligible candidates and without following the rules of appointment, such experience cannot be equated with experience of a regular appointee.”

The Court quoted the apex court's caution against treating two unequals equally, observing that doing so would offend the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16.

Lower Courts Faulted for Misreading Reinstatement Award

Both the Trial Court (14.02.2005) and the Lower Appellate Court (27.07.2005) had decreed in favour of the respondents, holding that once reinstatement with back wages was granted, their pre-termination ad-hoc service must be counted for all consequential benefits.

Justice Nalwa held these decisions to be contrary to settled law and based on an incorrect inference of deemed continuity. He observed that:

“Courts below erred in presuming deemed continuity merely from reinstatement and back wages.”

Accordingly, the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed, and the prior judgments were set aside.

Judgment Ensures Equality in Public Employment Is Not Compromised

This decision is a strong reaffirmation of merit-based public employment and the constitutional mandate against backdoor appointments. It draws a clear line that reinstatement after illegal termination cannot validate an earlier unlawful entry, nor can it serve as a vehicle to claim seniority or promotional parity with duly appointed employees.

It also serves as a caution to Trial Courts and Tribunals not to extend benefits beyond the precise terms of an award—particularly where continuity of service is not expressly granted.

Conclusion: Court Protects Service Rule Sanctity, Denies Retrospective Benefit to Illegal Appointments

By disallowing seniority and service-related benefits for ad-hoc service gained through an illegal appointment, the High Court has protected the integrity of service rules and ensured that equality in public employment is not diluted through judicial presumption or equitable sympathy.

Date of Decision: February 9, 2026