
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the 1983 termination of a Gramin Bank clerk, ruling that the regulation under which he was sacked was void from inception because it was declared unconstitutional…
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the 1983 termination of a Gramin Bank clerk, ruling that the regulation under which he was sacked was void from inception because it was declared unconstitutional by the court in 1994. The division bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held that a post-Constitution law or regulation declared to violate Part III of the Constitution is destroyed at birth and cannot be revived, even if the relevant fundamental right is later amended or reinterpreted.

The appellant was appointed as a clerk with the Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank in 1981 on one year's probation, which was later extended by six months. The bank terminated him on 11 March 1983 under Regulation 10 of its Staff Service Regulations, 1980, claiming unsatisfactory service. The employee challenged the termination in civil court in 1983, eventually filing a writ petition that was dismissed in 2004, leading to the present appeal.
The High Court also held that since the maximum probation period ended on 19 January 1983 and no discharge was ordered, the employee was deemed confirmed in service and a permanent employee when the termination order was passed on 11 March 1983. The court rejected the bank's argument that the earlier 1994 ruling declaring the regulation unconstitutional had passed sub silentio on the relevant point, noting that the declaration operates in rem.
This ruling clarifies the difference between pre-Constitution and post-Constitution laws under Article 13. A post-Constitution law struck down for violating fundamental rights is void ab initio and cannot be revived, unlike a pre-Constitution law that is only eclipsed. The decision also reinforces the principle that where service regulations cap probation and require confirmation at its end, a deemed confirmation arises automatically if no discharge is ordered. The bank may now have to reinstate the employee or pay decades of back wages, a significant financial liability for a regional rural bank. The next step will likely be a compliance order from the High Court on the exact relief.
For similar cases across public sector banks, this judgment provides a binding precedent on both the voidness of unconstitutional regulations and the deemed confirmation of probationers who have served beyond the maximum probation period. The key number to watch is the back wages calculation from 1983, which could exceed Rs 50 lakh including interest.
Source: livelaw.in
This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.