The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a person who has served in an honorary capacity cannot claim salary arrears for that period after their services are later regularized with only prospective effect. The Division Bench of Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Anjan Moni Kalita made this observation while hearing an appeal filed by a teacher whose services had been regularized after she had worked in an honorary position for more than two decades.
The case involved a Subject Teacher for Logic and Philosophy at Barama Higher Secondary School who was initially appointed on July 12, 2000, based on a Governing Body resolution passed on March 3, 2000. She continued to work in an honorary capacity for over twenty years without receiving a regular salary. Eventually, her post was regularized when it was converted from a Post Graduate Teacher in Assamese to a Post Graduate Teacher in Logic and Philosophy. The order of regularization clearly stated that her pay and allowances would take effect prospectively from the date of the order, meaning that it would not cover her earlier honorary service.
Despite this, the teacher filed a writ petition seeking arrear salary for the period between her initial appointment in 2000 and the date of regularization. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on August 3, 2023, holding that she had accepted the honorary nature of her appointment and therefore could not retrospectively claim financial benefits for that period. Dissatisfied with this decision, she filed an intra-court appeal challenging the order.
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s ruling, emphasizing that the teacher’s appointment was explicitly honorary and that she had accepted the conditions attached to it. The Court noted that since the regularization order had clearly stated that the pay and benefits would apply only prospectively, she was not entitled to any salary or arrears for the earlier period of honorary service. The judges further observed that when a person willingly accepts an honorary appointment, there is no legal basis to later demand compensation for that service unless the regularization order expressly provides retrospective benefits.
The Court also drew a distinction between honorary or temporary appointments and regularized service. It clarified that only when an order of regularization specifically mentions retrospective effect or provides for payment for the earlier period can an employee claim such arrears. In the absence of these conditions, no entitlement to back pay arises.
This decision reinforces an established legal principle that individuals serving in honorary positions do so voluntarily and without expectation of salary or allowances. The mere fact of long service does not create a right to claim payment unless the terms of employment or subsequent regularization explicitly provide for it. The Court highlighted that regularization with prospective effect signifies the beginning of a new legal and financial relationship and cannot retroactively alter the terms under which the person previously served.
The judgment has significant implications for employees in public institutions who render honorary or temporary services with the expectation of eventual regularization. It underscores that unless the government or appointing authority grants retrospective benefits at the time of regularization, such employees cannot demand arrears for their earlier unpaid service. By dismissing the appeal, the Gauhati High Court reaffirmed that voluntary honorary service does not carry a right to salary for the past period once regularization takes effect only prospectively.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.