Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Termination After Two Decades of Service

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an employee who has rendered over two decades of service cannot be removed on the ground of irregularity in appointment, particularly when there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on their part.

In doing so, the court reaffirmed that administrative lapses by the employer cannot be used to penalise an employee after a long lapse of time, especially where the appointment was made following a due process prevailing at the time.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal was hearing a writ petition filed by Bhagwandeen, who had challenged his removal from service in 2017. The petitioner had been appointed as a peon in 1995 pursuant to a process that included an interview and consideration under the policy governing compassionate appointments at the time. His appointment was linked to the voluntary retirement of his father-in-law, who had sought such retirement on medical and personal grounds while requesting that the petitioner be appointed in his place as a dependent family member.

Mr. Quazi Fakhruddin, advocate for the petitioner argued that his appointment was made strictly in accordance with the policy dated June 10, 1994, which was in force at the relevant time. He contended that he had undergone a proper selection process and had continuously served for more than 22 years without any complaint. It was further submitted that the subsequent circular dated January 3, 1995, relied upon by the authorities to question his appointment, could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate a selection that had already taken place.

On the other hand, the State defended the termination by relying on a scrutiny exercise initiated pursuant to earlier directions issued in a public interest litigation concerning irregular appointments in public posts. The authorities claimed that the petitioner’s appointment was contrary to the applicable rules, particularly because there was no material to establish that his father-in-law had been medically declared unfit in accordance with the prescribed procedure, which was a prerequisite for compassionate appointment under the policy framework.

The court, however, found that the controversy was no longer res integra and had already been settled in earlier decisions, including a recent judgment delivered in connected matters. Referring to its earlier ruling, the bench emphasised that there is a clear distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It observed that while illegal appointments made in violation of statutory provisions may be liable to be set aside, appointments that merely suffer from procedural irregularities cannot be invalidated after a long period of service, particularly when the employee is not at fault.

Quoting from its earlier judgment, the court reiterated, “The appointment of the petitioners was not illegal or void ab initio; at the most, it suffered from an irregularity which, after the petitioners rendered about 25 years of service, stood automatically cured.”

The bench further noted that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi discourages reopening of long-settled appointments, especially where the employee has worked for years without any allegation of wrongdoing.

Importantly, the court also rejected the State’s argument that a son-in-law is not entitled to compassionate appointment. It pointed out that the policy itself permitted nomination of a near relative in cases where there were no immediate heirs to take care of the employee. In the present case, the father-in-law had sought voluntary retirement with the assurance that the petitioner would be appointed and would look after him, and the authorities had acted upon that request.

The bench observed that any failure to comply with procedural requirements, such as medical certification, could not be attributed to the petitioner. Instead, it was a lapse on the part of the employer, which could not be used decades later to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood. The court underscored that fairness and equity demand that an employee should not suffer for administrative errors committed by the authorities themselves.

Allowing the petition, the court quashed the 2017 termination order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. However, it clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages, though he would receive all consequential service and promotional benefits in accordance with law.

Case Title: Bhagwandeen v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: March 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal