Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shailendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 407 Patna

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 407 Patna
Judgement Date : 11 February, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Shailendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2026

Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8800 of 2024
     ======================================================
     Shailendra Kumar Singh S/o- Ramakant Prasad Singh, R/o- Village-
     Bhagwanpur Kamla, P.S.- Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur.

                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                     Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
     Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Creation, Water Resources Department.
     Motihari.
3.   The Superintending Engineer, Tirhut Canal Circle, Motihari.
4.   The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division, Motihari.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mrs.Namrata Mishra, Sr. Advocate
                                   Mrs. Anamika Kumari, Advocate
                                   Mr. Chhotelal Mishra, Advocate
                                   Mrs. Archana Jha, Advocate
     For the State          :      Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7
                                   Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-7
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                         ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 11-02-2026 Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with a

limited prayer seeking a direction to the respondents to count

the past services rendered by the petitioner as an ad

hoc/casual/seasonal employee on the vacant post of Typist in the

office of the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Gandak

Yojna, Motihari, from 09.12.1987 till the regularization of his

services on 29.06.2002, for the purpose of grant of benefits

under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme Rules, Patna High Court CWJC No.8800 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026

2010, and further for a direction to revise his pay scale and

make payment of consequential arrears of salary.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly

submits that the services of the petitioner were admittedly

regularized with effect from 29.06.2002. It is further submitted

that thereafter the petitioner has been receiving his dues and

salary by treating him as a regular employee. Learned counsel

contends that the petitioner had been continuously discharging

duties since 09.12.1987, though described as an ad

hoc/casual/seasonal employee, against a vacant post of Typist.

On such basis, it is argued that the past services of the petitioner

ought to be counted for the purposes of ACP/MACP benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

submits that the petitioner had initially been engaged as a daily

wage employee and services rendered in such capacity cannot

be counted for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP benefits. In

support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon

Finance Department Resolution No. 5376 dated 27.05.2013,

wherein it has been clarified that only services rendered as a

temporary employee and against a temporary post are to be

counted for ACP/MACP benefits but a daily wager cannot be

said to be and comes within the definition of the temporary post Patna High Court CWJC No.8800 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026

according to resolution no. 5376 dated 27.05.2013. It is further

submitted that the MACP Rules clearly provide that only regular

service shall be taken into consideration. Since the petitioner

was regularized with effect from 29.06.2002, the benefits have

rightly been computed from the said date.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

upon perusal of the pleadings as well as Finance Department

Resolution No. 5376 dated 27.05.2013, it appears that the

petitioner was engaged on the post said to be सामययक पद.

Meaning thereby he has to do the work on the said post time to

time and not continuously. It is due to this reason, this Court

held that the service of the petitioner cannot be treated at par

with the employees mentioned in the said Resolution No. 5376

dated 27.05.2013 and only due to this reason, his services

cannot be treated as regular w.e..f 29.06.2002.

6. With this view of the matter, the present writ

petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          11/02/2026
Transmission Date       NA
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter