"Lost in the System: An Engineer's Fight for Fair Treatment in Bihar"

 


Introduction

Bureaucracy can be a maze, and sometimes, individuals find themselves caught in its twists and turns, facing delays and inaction. This is the story of Kripa Shankar Singh, an engineer in Bihar, India, who waged a legal battle against the state government over what he argued was unfair treatment regarding his posting and salary. The case, The State Of Bihar & Ors. v. Kripa Shankar Singh, highlights the frustrations of dealing with administrative delays and the importance of accountability in public service.

The Background: A Career Delayed

Kripa Shankar Singh's case revolves around his employment with the Water Resources Department in Bihar. The core issue is a period in his career when he was, in his view, unfairly treated concerning his posting and the regularization of his service.

Singh's grievances stemmed from a period between 1982 and 1986. During this time, his service was regularized, but a portion of this period was treated as "due leave." Singh contested this, arguing that this period should have been considered as "waiting for posting," a crucial distinction that affected his salary and other benefits.

To fully grasp the situation, it's essential to understand the concept of "waiting for posting." In government service, employees may sometimes be without a specific assignment for various reasons. This period is often designated as "waiting for posting," and the employee is still considered to be on duty, entitling them to salary and benefits. However, if the same period is categorized as "leave," the employee may not receive these entitlements.

Singh argued that he was essentially in limbo through no fault of his own. He claimed that he was ready and willing to work but was not given a proper posting in a timely manner.

The Legal Battle: Seeking Justice

Frustrated with the situation, Kripa Shankar Singh took his case to the Patna High Court, filing a writ petition. In his petition, he sought the court's intervention to rectify what he perceived as injustices.

Specifically, Singh asked the court to direct the authorities to:

  • Treat the period from June 1, 1982, to December 31, 1986, entirely as "waiting for posting," rather than classifying a portion of it as "due leave."

  • Regularize his arrears of salary and increments accordingly.

  • Fix his increments as an Assistant Engineer and release the due arrears.

  • Release his salary arrears based on a notification dated June 25, 2003, under the ACP Scheme (Assured Career Progression Scheme), which had been made effective from August 9, 1999.

The crux of Singh's argument was that he was being penalized for administrative delays and inefficiencies that were beyond his control.

The High Court's Decision: Initial Victory

The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, after hearing Singh's case, ruled in his favor on April 24, 2018. This decision was a significant victory for Singh, as it seemingly validated his claims of unfair treatment.

The State's Appeal: The Fight Continues

However, the State of Bihar decided to challenge the Single Judge's order. The state authorities filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), essentially an appeal within the same High Court, to a division bench.

The state's argument centered on the claim that Singh had not properly discharged his duties as an Assistant Engineer. They contended that he was not entitled to have the period from October 20, 1982, to December 29, 1986, regularized as "waiting for posting." The state's counsel argued that the Single Judge had not adequately considered Singh's conduct.

Singh's Defense: Emphasizing Administrative Lapses

Kripa Shankar Singh's legal team countered the state's arguments, asserting that the delays and inaction were on the part of the authorities. They presented the following timeline of events:

  • Singh was initially posted at Siwan, but there was no vacant post available.

  • It took the authorities five months to issue a fresh posting order for the Waterways Circle, Ranchi, on October 20, 1982.

  • Crucially, this posting order was allegedly not communicated to Singh.

  • Eventually, a new posting order was issued on December 29, 1986, to the office of the Chief Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Division, Patna.

Singh's defense emphasized that he was ready to assume his responsibilities but was hampered by the administration's inefficiency.

The Court's Analysis: Holding the State Accountable

The division bench of the Patna High Court carefully considered the arguments from both sides. The court made some critical observations about the state's handling of the matter:

  • The court found a "serious lapse" on the part of the state authorities in failing to take timely action to provide Singh with a posting order against a vacant post.

  • The court highlighted the fact that Singh was initially posted at Siwan despite the absence of a vacant post.

  • Regarding the posting at Waterways Circle, Ranchi, the court noted that the order was either not communicated to Singh or, even if it was, the authorities failed to take any action against him for not reporting to duty.

  • The court pointedly remarked on the state's inaction in not initiating any inquiry into Singh's alleged unauthorized absence.

In essence, the court held the state accountable for its own administrative shortcomings.

The Final Verdict: Justice Prevails

After a thorough examination of the facts and arguments, the division bench upheld the Single Judge's order dated April 24, 2018. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the state was dismissed, reaffirming Kripa Shankar Singh's entitlement to the reliefs he had sought.

What This Case Means for Everyone

The Kripa Shankar Singh case carries important lessons for both government employees and citizens in general:

  • Accountability in Governance: The case underscores the importance of accountability and responsibility within government administration. Public authorities have a duty to act efficiently and fairly in their dealings with employees and the public.

  • The Rights of Employees: It reaffirms the rights of employees to fair treatment and timely action from their employers, particularly in matters of posting, salary, and career progression.

  • The Impact of Administrative Delays: The case vividly illustrates the detrimental effects of administrative delays and inaction on individuals' careers and livelihoods.

  • The Role of the Judiciary: It demonstrates the crucial role of the judiciary in holding the executive branch accountable and ensuring that citizens' grievances are addressed.

  • Persistence and Perseverance: Kripa Shankar Singh's case is a testament to the power of persistence and perseverance in the face of bureaucratic challenges.

In Conclusion

The Kripa Shankar Singh case is more than just a legal dispute; it's a story about an individual's struggle for fairness and the importance of a responsive and responsible government. It serves as a reminder that while administrative processes are necessary, they should not become a barrier to justice and fair treatment. The court's decision in this case reinforces the principle that public authorities must be held accountable for their actions and that individuals should not be penalized for systemic inefficiencies.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxMzgxIzIwMTgjMSNO-naQ2rb--am1--X9aY=