The Patna High Court, led by Justice Anil Kumar Sinha, has ruled against prioritizing a female Peon’s service over a male employee who held a sanctioned position at a girls’ school. The court stated that employment decisions must be based on clear legal guidelines, not on factors like gender, unless backed by law. This ruling overturned previous orders that had unfairly favored the female employee and restored the rightful recognition of the male employee’s service, ensuring he and his family would receive overdue payments and benefits.
Case Background
The case revolved around Ramdeo Yadav, the father of the petitioner, who was appointed as a Peon at Project Girls High School, Anandpur, in 1982. He worked in this position until his death in 2012. However, despite years of service, his employment was not officially recognized, and he was denied salary benefits. Instead, a female employee, Laldei Devi, whose service started in 1983 in an unsanctioned post, was given priority and recognized in 2008.
Yadav’s appointment was against one of two sanctioned positions at the school, but the authorities rejected his recognition, claiming there were no posts available. Meanwhile, Laldei Devi was prioritized due to her gender, as she worked in a girls’ school, even though her position was not officially sanctioned.
Arguments in Court
The petitioner, represented by lawyer Mr. Ram Sagar Singh, argued that his father was wrongfully denied recognition and benefits, even though he was legally appointed to a sanctioned post. He pointed out that Laldei Devi had been given priority based solely on her gender, despite her appointment being to an unsanctioned post. The petitioner also submitted reports from school officials and other authorities confirming his father’s continuous service and the arbitrary rejection of his claim.
On the other side, the State, represented by Dr. Rakesh Prabhat, defended its decision by stating that only two Peon positions were sanctioned and that Laldei Devi was prioritized for recognition because she worked in a girls’ school. Laldei Devi’s lawyer, Mr. Amarendra Narayan, argued that her gender was important given the school’s nature and that her service was properly recognized based on school records.
Court’s Ruling
After reviewing the case, the court found that Ramdeo Yadav had continuously worked at the school since 1982 in one of the two sanctioned Peon positions. On the other hand, Laldei Devi had been appointed in 1983 to an unsanctioned post, yet her service was given priority solely because she was a woman working at a girls’ school.
The court criticized this decision, calling it arbitrary and without legal backing. Justice Sinha highlighted that there was no government policy or circular that supported giving preference to a female employee over a male employee based on gender alone, especially when the male employee was already appointed to a sanctioned post.
The court also noted that various school and district authorities had consistently recognized Ramdeo Yadav’s service over the years, making the denial of his recognition even more unjust. Furthermore, the project report clearly listed Ramdeo Yadav’s name as being appointed to a sanctioned post, while Laldei Devi’s name was not mentioned.
In light of these findings, the court ruled that Ramdeo Yadav was entitled to full recognition and the benefits that came with his position, including arrears of salary and retirement dues. The court also ordered that his family, including the petitioner, receive all monetary benefits that had been wrongfully denied over the years.
Conclusion
This ruling by the Patna High Court emphasizes the importance of following legal guidelines in employment decisions. The court made it clear that gender cannot be used as a sole factor for prioritizing one employee over another unless there is a specific law supporting such a decision. By restoring the rights of Ramdeo Yadav, the court ensured that fairness and objectivity remained central to employment recognition.
