Patna High Court

Munnu Prasad Singh vs The Patna Municipal Corpn.Andors on 5 May, 2025

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
            Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10262 of 2004
======================================================
Munnu Prasad Singh

                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                Versus
The Patna Municipal Corpn. And Ors.

                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Vijay Kr.Singh, Advocate
For the PMC            :      Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate

======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                ORAL JUDGMENT
 Date : 05-05-2025

                Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

 Counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation.

               2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a

 direction to the respondent authorities to consider the

 petitioner's claim for regular appointment to the vacant post of

 Assistant, on which post he has been discharging his duties

 since 1987. The petitioner further prays for appropriate

 directions regarding payment of basic salary along with all other

 admissible allowances attached to the said post, in accordance

 with law.

               3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

 petitioner was initially appointed as a Safai Mazdoor vide

 Memo No. 966 dated 07.07.1979 and pursuant thereto, he joined

 the post and has been working continuously and regularly to the
 Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025
                                           2/13




         satisfaction of the concerned authorities. It is further submitted

         that, in accordance with the decision of the Corporation, the

         petitioner and similarly situated persons, who were appointed

         against regular vacant posts of Safai Mazdoor, were placed on

         the regular pay scale, as communicated vide Memo No. 622,

         Patna, dated 02.08.1991. The petitioner was thereafter directed

         to work as an Assistant in the Health Section by the

         Corporation's head office vide Memo No. 337, Patna, dated

         20.05.1987

. Since then, he has been discharging his duties as an

Assistant to the full satisfaction of the authorities. It is further

submitted that the petitioner was assigned the responsibilities of

an Assistant in the Health Section, specifically to clear the

pending work, and such assignment was duly communicated to

all concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has filed several representations before the concerned

authorities seeking regular appointment and claiming

entitlement to the pay scale to the post of Assistant, on which he

has been working. However, no decision has been taken on

these representations till date. It is further submitted that,

although the petitioner has been discharging the duties of an

Assistant since the issuance of the initial appointment letter, he Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

continues to receive remuneration equivalent only to that of a

Safai Mazdoor. Learned counsel contends further submits that,

despite the petitioner's continuous and successful discharge of

duties as an Assistant, he is being denied the appropriate salary

and allowances, in violation of the principles laid down by the

higher courts of the country. The petitioner is therefore entitled

to the basic salary and all admissible allowances applicable to

the post of Assistant.

5. Learned counsel further submits that, while the

petitioner has been performing the duties of an Assistant since

his appointment, the respondent authorities have, in the

meantime, considered and adjusted the claims of several other

similarly situated persons by granting them regular

appointments and appropriate pay scales. However, the

legitimate claim of the petitioner remains unconsidered till date.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the petitioner's performance has been consistently

commendable, and there have been no complaints or adverse

remarks against him by any superior authorities at any point in

time. It is submitted that the respondent Municipality has failed

to uphold the basic principles of law and justice. Instead of

ensuring the petitioner's rightful entitlement, a miscarriage of Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

justice has occurred, depriving the petitioner of his due benefits.

It is further submitted that the petitioner's rights have been

repeatedly violated, as he has been performing the duties of an

Assistant without receiving the remuneration. Although the

petitioner retired in 2018, his grievances remain unresolved.

Moreover, the petitioner's writ petition has been pending before

this Hon'ble Court since 2004. In light of the above, the

petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.

7. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation

submits that the Municipal Corporation has filed its reply in

response to the present writ petition. He further submits that the

petitioner has sought regular appointment against the vacant

post of Assistant on which he has been performing his duties

since 1987 whereas he entered as daily wager as Safai Magdoor

@ Rs.5/ per day since 1979 and become regular as Safai

Magdoor pay-scale w.e.f. 2.8.1981. However, the petitioner's

claim for regular appointment to the post of Assistant is not

permissible, as the petitioner has already retired from the service

on 31.01.2018, holding the position of Safai Mazdoor.

Therefore, the present writ petition has become infructuous.

Learned counsel also submits that the factual position is

otherwise. The petitioner was initially engaged by the Municipal Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

Corporation, along with other daily wagers, on a temporary

basis as a Safai Mazdoor at a rate of Rs. 5/- per day, as per

office order 586, Memo No. 966 dated 07.07.1979, issued under

the signature of the Executive Officer, Bankipur Circle, Patna

Municipal Corporation.

8. Learned counsel for the Patna Municipal

Corporation further submits that, in light of the State

Government's order and the decision taken by the Empowered

Standing Committee, the services of 516 daily wage workers,

including the petitioner, who were working on a temporary basis

as Safai Mazdoor, were regularized and adjusted into the

respective pay scales. This adjustment was made vide Memo

No. 622, dated 02.08.1991, issued by the Chief Executive

Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel further

submits that the petitioner's correct status is determined solely

by his adjustment in the pay scale, as outlined in the said Memo

No. 622, dated 02.08.1991. The petitioner's services were

regularized as a Safai Mazdoor in accordance with this order

mentioned above, and he continued to serve in that capacity,

until his retirement on 31.01.2018. Therefore, the petitioner's

subsequent claim for regularization to the post of Assistant is

not tenable in law. He further submits that the petitioner's claim Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

is based on Order No. 114 contained in Memo No. 337, dated

20.05.1987, issued by the Health Officer of Patna Municipal

Corporation, directing the petitioner, a Safai Mazdoor working

Rs.5/- per day, to perform the duties of an Assistant, is invalid.

The petitioner was allowed to work as an Assistant on the

previous terms and conditions but was not entitled to any

monetary benefits for such duties as already mentioned in the

letter. The Health Officer, however, was not the competent

authority to issue such an order. Learned counsel further submits

that the petitioner's status as a daily wage Safai Mazdoor was

not regularized at that time, he was instructed to perform

Assistant duties. This fact was not mentioned in the petitioner's

writ petition, and since the petitioner's services were regularized

as a Safai Mazdoor in 1991, his claim to be regularized in the

post of Assistant is legally untenable. Learned counsel further

submits that since the petitioner's services were regularized in

1991, there was no justification for the Health Officer's order

dated 20.05.1987, which directs the petitioner to perform

Assistant duties. The letter in question appears to have been

issued without following proper procedures, including the

requisite roster clearance.

9. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

further submits that several writ petitions have been filed before

this Hon'ble Court on similar issues. He refers to the order dated

11.09.2008, wherein the then Municipal Commissioner of Patna

Municipal Corporation reverted the employees to their original

posts, which includes the petitioner. In light of this, it is

submitted that the petitioner's claim is not tenable in law.

Learned counsel cites the case of one Sudarshan Prasad, who

was appointed as a Safai Mazdoor and later claimed

regularization of his service to the post of Sanitary Supervisor,

on the grounds that he had been performing the duties of the

Sanitary Supervisor. However, the Municipal Corporation of

Patna rejected his claim. Subsequently, Sudarshan Prasad

approached this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 19681 of 2011,

which was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 14.12.2023. This

matter has already been discussed in the context of the

petitioner's claim. Learned counsel further submits that the

petitioner's writ petition was initially filed in 2004 and was

dismissed on 01.07.2011 due to the petitioner's failure to

represent the case on various occasions. After a gap of seven

years, a restoration application (MJC No. 5002 of 2018) was

filed, and the writ petition was restored vide order dated

15.07.2022. About this delay, it is submitted that it demonstrates Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

the petitioner's lack of interest in pursuing the matter diligently.

Learned counsel further submits that the judgments cited by the

petitioner, particularly the case of Uday Kumar Singh in CWJC

No. 3441 of 2002, are not applicable to the present case. He

contends that the case of Uday Kumar Singh is not comparable

to the petitioner's case, and therefore, the ratio of that judgment

cannot be relied upon as precedent for the present petitioner.

10. Learned counsel further submits that the

petitioner's counsel relied on the cases of Shiv Bachan Yadav

and Rajendra Kumar, but the issues involved in those cases are

entirely different. He submits that this Hon'ble Court, in its

recent judgment, has categorically addressed and rejected the

claims of one Sudarshan Prasad and similarly situated

individuals by a reasoned order dated 14.12.2023. In light of

this, learned counsel contends that the petitioner has no valid

claim, and therefore, the present writ petition should be

dismissed.

11. In response thereof, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the contention of the Patna Municipal

Corporation is incorrect. He refers to the case of Uday Kumar

Singh in CWJC No. 3441 of 2002, in which this Hon'ble Court

ruled in favor of Uday Kumar Singh. Although the Municipal Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

Corporation challenged this decision through an LPA, Civil

Review, and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all such

challenges were dismissed. The Patna Municipal Corporation

did not pursue the matter further before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits

that the case of the petitioner is squarely similar to that of Uday

Kumar Singh, and as such, the petitioner is entitled to the relief

sought in the present writ petition.

12. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of

documents available on record, certain facts are undisputed by

both sides. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner was initially

engaged by the Municipal Corporation through Office Order

586, Memo No. 966, dated 07.07.1979, as a daily wage worker

on a temporary basis in the post of Safai Majdoor, at a rate of

Rs. 5/- per day (Annexure-1 of the writ petition). The

appointment was made under the signature of the Executive

Officer, Bankipur Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation. It

further transpires that the petitioner's service was regularized as

a Safai Majdoor through Office Order contained in Memo No.

622, dated 02.08.1991 (as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ

petition). However, the petitioner's demand to be appointed to

the post of Assistant, based on Memo No. 337, dated Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

20.05.1987, is questionable. This memo was issued prior to the

petitioner's regularization as a Safai Majdoor by an officer who

was not a Competent Authority under the law, as only the Chief

Executive Officer of the Municipality has the authority to make

such appointments under the municipal laws. It further

transpires that the petitioner's reliance on the decisions in the

cases of Shiv Bachchan Prasad Yadav and Rajendra Kumar are

not correct. Neither Annexure-1 nor Annexure-2 mentions the

names of Shiv Bachchan Prasad Yadav or Rajendra Kumar,

which indicates that the petitioner's case is not similar to them.

13. It further transpires to this Court upon going

through the decisions of the case of Uday Kumar Singh in

CWJC No. 3441 of 2002 cited by the petitioner that the

petitioner was appointed as a Safai Majdoor on a daily-wage

basis in 1979, whereas Uday Kumar Singh was appointed as a

Chairman on a daily-wage basis in 1975. The petitioner's

service was regularized as a Safai Majdoor in 1991, whereas

Uday Kumar Singh's service was confirmed against a vacant

sanctioned post in 1984. The petitioner is seeking regularization

to the post of Assistant from 1987, prior to his regularization as

a Safai Majdoor. This is a surprising aspect of the case, which

raises concerns for this Court.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

14. Further, after the decision of this Hon'ble Court

in the case of Sudarshan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar decided in

CWJC No. 19681 of 2011 on 14.12.2023 where this Hon'ble

Court has pleased to hold particularly in paragraph nos. 06 to 11

which states as follows:-

"6. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed provisionally on the post of Safai Mazdoor in the pay scale of Rs. 350-425/- pursuant to the order of the Circle Officer Order No. 15, Memo No. 52 dated 18.01.1984.

7. Learned counsel for the Corporation further submits that without following the due process and without Roster clearness the petitioner was posted to work as in-charge Tax Collector vide order dated 26.11.1997 but the petitioner was neither allowed to work permanently nor he was promoted in scale, he was only asked to work as in-charge for stop gap arrangement and thereafter, the petitioner has moved before this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 4111 of 1997 and pursuant to the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition the petitioner has filed a representation before the authority and authority has rejected the same which is challenged in the writ petition.

8. In compliance of the different Patna High Court CWJC No.10262 of 2004 dt.05-05-2025

order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the Municipal Commissioner reverted the employee of the Corporation on the original post vide order dated 11.09.2008 and the petitioner was also reverted back from his original post and as such the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of the law.

9. Learned counsel for the Corporation further submits that that petitioner has retired in the year 2015 and the Corporation has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and passed a clean order which is impugned in the present writ petition.

10. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the petitioner is not entitled to the arrears of salary on the post of Sanitary Supervisor because he was never appointed on the said post in question.