Patna High Court
Sarika Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 27 February, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3116 of 2025
======================================================
1. Sarika Kumari Daughter of Mahendra Prasad Thakur, Resident of Mohalla-
Gannipur, Kalam Bagh Chowk, Post- Head Post Office, P.S.
Kajimohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur, presently working as an Assistant
/3rd Grade on daily wages basis in Langat Singh College, Muzaffarpur.
2. Shashi Shekhar Son of Arendra Nath Ray, Resident of Village- Gangaya Urf
Parmanandpur, P.O. Parmanandpur, District- Muzaffarpur, presently working
as a Peon/4th Grade on daily wages basis in Langat Singh College,
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Higher Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through the
Registrar.
5. The Vice Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University,
Muzaffarpur.
6. The Registrar, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University,
Muzaffarpur.
7. The Finance Officer, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University,
Muzaffarpur.
8. The Principal, Langat Singh College, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav Shandilya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, S C- (8)
For the B.R.A.U. : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate
Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-02-2025
Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Bindhyachal Rai,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University and Mr.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3116 of 2025 dt.27-02-2025
2/7
Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 for the State.
2. Petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for following
reliefs in the paragraph No.1 of the writ petition:-
"(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and
directing the Respondent Authorities to regularize
the services of the petitioner no. 1 as Assistant/ 3 rd
Grade employee and petitioner no. 2 as Peon 4th
Grade employee in Langat Singh College,
Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the College)
on the ground that the petitioners were appointed
after following the due process of selection as third
grade and fourth grade employees against the
sanctioned and vacant post but on contractual basis
and they are working as such sine last 12 years
continuously as also the services of similarly
situated persons have already been regularized by
the Respondent University ignoring the better claim
of the petitioners.
(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of MANDAMUS ,commanding and
directing the Respondent University to grant
consequential benefit of service counting the
services of the petitioners from the date of their
initial appointment.
(III) For issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of MANDAMUS ,commanding and
directing the Respondent University to allow the
salary for "same work same pay" monthly salary of
Rs.26,069/- per month to the petitioner no.1 and
Rs.23,580/- to the petitioner no. 2 on the basis of
minimum basic pay of 7th pay-scale with admissible
D.A. with effect from 10.03.2022 pursuant to the
office order contained in memo no.B/1222 dated
18.07.2022
issued under the signature of the
Respondent no.6.
(IV) For issuance of any other
appropriate writ /writs, order / orders direction /
directions for which the writ petitioners would be
entitled under the facts and circumstances of the
case."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners have filed their detailed
individual representations before the Vice-Chancellor of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3116 of 2025 dt.27-02-2025
B.R.A. Bihar University for regularization of their services on
21.12.2023 and 21.05.2024, however, no action has been taken
till date on the said representations.
4. Considering the relief sought for in the present writ
petition, as well as, submission made on behalf of the
petitioners, I find it proper to direct the Vice-Chancellor of the
B.R.A. Bihar University to verify, as to whether, the petitioners
were engaged/appointed on the sanctioned vacant post and,
thereafter, take necessary steps and consider the representations
of the petitioners in light of the recent law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of
India & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024), wherein the Apex
Court relying on its judgment passed in Vinod Kumar and Ors.
Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R.
1230 has made following observations in Paragraph Nos. 20, 21,
22, 23, 25 and 27, which are reproduced hereinafter:
"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi
(supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have
rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The
said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and
illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional
requirements. However, where appointments were not
illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had
served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and
humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,
continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks
inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a
scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent
Patna High Court CWJC No.3116 of 2025 dt.27-02-2025
judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230, it was held that
held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose appointment
was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties
as performed by the regular employee over a considerable
period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant
paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with
the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances
under which the appellants were employed and have
continued their service. The reliance on procedural
formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that have
accrued over a considerable period through
continuous service. Their promotion was based on a
specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent
circular, followed by a selection process involving
written tests and interviews, which distinguishes
their case from the appointments through back door
entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of
considering certain appointments even if were not
made strictly in accordance with the prescribed
Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been
made illegally if they had followed the procedures of
regular appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present case..."
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the
initial label of the appellants' engagements and the
outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts
must look beyond the surface labels and consider the
realities of employment: continuous, long-term service,
indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or
illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original terms did not
explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was
belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy
has led to an increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job
security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour
Patna High Court CWJC No.3116 of 2025 dt.27-02-2025
standards. Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an
even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage
in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also
sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has consistently
advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of
workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration
encourages companies to provide stable employment and to
observe obligations concerning employment stability and
social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should
assume a leading role in promoting employment security,
particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could
exacerbate long-term unemployment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions, often
face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term
obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in
several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are often
labeled as "temporary" or "contractual, even when
their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as
seen in the present case. This practice undermines
the principles of natural justice and subjects
workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless
of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in
their roles, creating a systemic disparity between
them and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed
by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This practice
not only perpetuates exploitation but also
Patna High Court CWJC No.3116 of 2025 dt.27-02-2025
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion,
it is imperative for government departments to lead
by example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are
integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also
exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair
employment practices, government institutions can
reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles of
justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international standards
and sets a positive precedent for the private sector
to follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country."
5. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently
reiterated the same in the case of Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal Nos. 8158-8179 of 2024),
wherein in paragraphs no. 14 and 15, the Apex Court has held as
follows:
"14. The Respondent Employer places
reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-
wage or temporary employees cannot claim
permanent absorption in the absence of statutory
rules providing such absorption. However, as
frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes
between appointments that are "illegal" and those
that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for
regularization if they meet certain conditions. More
importantly,Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to
justify exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate
Patna High Court CWJC No.3116 of 2025 dt.27-02-2025
recruitment. Given the record which shows no true
contractor-based arrangement and a consistent
need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged
asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real,
cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or
continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant
Workmen continuously rendered their services over
several years, sometimes spanning more than a
decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not
produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish
such records--despite directions to do so--allows
an adverse inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in
nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil
ongoing municipal requirements year after year
cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor
agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate
to recall the broader critique of
indefinite"temporary" employment practices as
done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v.
Union of India."
6. With the above observation/direction, the present
writ petition stands disposed of.
7. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 04.03.2025
Transmission Date N/A
