Patna High Court
Vijay Bahadur Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 22 April, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6273 of 2016
======================================================
Vijay Bahadur Singh Son of Late Mishri Singh, Resident of Village- Ekparha,
P.O Aurhai, P.S Gamharia, District- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Department, Govt. of Bihar,
4. The Chief Engineer, Department of Public Health Engineering Mechanical,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Zonal Chief Engineers, Purnea Zone, Purnea.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle- Saharsa.
7. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Dewesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raghwanand, GA-11
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a
direction to the respondent authorities to regularize/absorb the
services of the petitioner on the post of Work Inspector/Work
Sarkar, a Group-C post under the concerned department. The
petitioner was initially engaged as a muster roll employee on the
post of Work Inspector and was subsequently taken over under
Patna High Court CWJC No.6273 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
2/5
the work charge establishment in the same capacity. However,
he was regularized on a lower post - Keyman-cum-Chaukidar -
a newly created Group-D post, in an arbitrary and illegal
manner, contrary to Memo No. 3050 dated 20.10.1984 issued by
the Finance Department, Government of Bihar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the petitioner has already retired, the regularization relief
may not be applicable at this stage. However, he seeks parity in
treatment with one similarly situated person, namely Phudan
Prasad Gupta, in whose case the respondent authorities have
taken a favourable decision.
4. It is submitted that the services of both the
petitioner and Phudan Prasad Gupta were absorbed in 2006 on
the post of Keyman-cum-Chaukidar, although both were
working as Work Inspectors/Work Sarkars, which are Group-C
posts. In 2016, Uday Prasad Gupta was granted pay protection
through Memo Nos. 151 dated 14.03.2016 and 503 dated
16.05.2016
(Annexure P-13 series to the supplementary
affidavit).
5. Learned counsel further submits that upon
receiving information in 2016 regarding the benefit granted to
Phudan Prasad Gupta, the petitioner made representations to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6273 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
concerned authorities. However, when no decision was taken, he
filed the present writ petition in 2016. It is submitted that even
in 2025, the petition remains pending, and the petitioner
continues to hope for justice. He prays that his case be treated at
par with that of Phudan Prasad Gupta, who was similarly
placed.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
petitioner's services were regularized in 2006. As such, the
cause of action, if any, arose at that time. Filing the writ petition
after a lapse of 10 years reflects delay and renders the petition
non-maintainable.
7. Upon consideration of the submissions made by
both parties, this Court finds that the petitioner accepted his
absorption on the post of Keyman-cum-Chaukidar. However,
since his colleague Phudan Prasad Gupta, similarly situated, was
later granted pay protection even after retirement by virtue of
Annexure P-13 series to the supplementary affidavit, the
petitioner's claim assumes merit. The cause of action in this
case arose in 2016 when the petitioner became aware of the
relief granted to a similarly situated person.
8. It is pertinent to refer to Clause 4C of the Bihar
State Litigation Policy, 2011, which reads as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.6273 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
"4.C. Covered Matters
4.C(1). A good number of cases are from
the category of similar cases. Each Government
Department will aim to consider and settle the claim
of the representationist/applicant employee/citizen, if
the claim is found covered by any decision of the
Court. Many service matters of this nature can be
disposed of at the level of the Department itself
without compelling the litigant to come to the Court.
In this manner, the Government Departments would
be acting as efficient litigants."
9. In light of the legal validity of Clause 4C, as duly
upheld by this Hon'ble Court in various judgments, the
petitioner is entitled to similar treatment, provided his case is
found to be covered under a precedent.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition stands
disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh
representation before Respondent No. 2, namely, the Principal
Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna, within 30 days from today, raising all his
grievances and specifically mentioning that his case is similarly
situated to that of Phudan Prasad Gupta. The petitioner shall
also enclose a copy of this order. The Principal Secretary shall
consider the petitioner's representation in light of Clause 4C of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6273 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 and pass a reasoned and
speaking order within 90 days thereafter.
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 26/04/2025
Transmission Date NA
