The Patna High Court has directed the competent authorities in Bihar’s Water Resources Department to reconsider the service, pay protection and pensionary claims of a daily-wage employee who worked continuously from 1980 before being absorbed into regular service in 2012.
A Single Judge Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Justice Kumar Manish, was hearing a writ petition filed by the petitioner, who had been working as a daily-wage employee under the Flood Control Circle, Samastipur, since 1980.
The petitioner, Bipin Kumar Verma, was initially engaged as a daily-wage employee against a sanctioned Class-III Typist post on June 16, 1980. He claimed that several employees who joined after him were regularized between 1984 and 1988, while his case was not considered. He had earlier approached the Patna High Court, which in 1999 directed payment of salary at the minimum of the applicable time scale and later, in 2003, directed the authorities to consider his claim for regularization.
After further proceedings, the authorities absorbed him as a Lower Division Clerk through an order dated December 5, 2012. However, the absorption was treated as a fresh appointment, reducing his basic pay from Rs. 9,840 to Rs. 7,730. He therefore sought protection of his earlier pay and recognition of his past service.
The petitioner also relied on the cases of other daily-wage employees who, according to him, were similarly placed or junior but had received notional regularization benefits for pension and retirement purposes. He argued that denying him similar treatment was discriminatory. The Court therefore considered whether the petitioner’s past continuous service could be entirely disregarded for pay protection and pensionary benefits, particularly in light of his claim that similarly situated juniors had received notional benefits.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., concerning prolonged engagement of workers under temporary labels and the constitutional responsibilities of the State as an employer.
The judgment observed:
"The petitioner’s long period of engagement and his subsequent superannuation in November 2019 are relevant circumstances, however, entitlement to pay protection and pensionary benefits must be determined separately under the applicable service and pension rules after examining the petitioner’s claim for parity."
The Patna High Court directed the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner’s claims concerning the legal effect of his 2012 absorption order, parity with other employees, pay protection under Rule 78 of the Bihar Service Code, and counting of past service for pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
The authority was directed to pass a reasoned order after examining the relevant records and precedents within three months. The writ petition was accordingly allowed to that extent.
Case Title: Bipin Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20684 of 2019
