Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a case where a petitioner sought regularization of his job in exchange for land given to the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) of Bihar, the Hon’ble Patna High Court delivered a partially favorable judgment.
The petitioner had donated his ancestral land in 1985 for constructing a pump house under the state’s Rural Water Supply Scheme. In exchange, he was promised a permanent job. He was appointed as a daily wage worker (Pump Khalasi) on the same date. Over the years, he was retrenched multiple times but continued to work, and at one stage, even had his services regularized briefly.
The key contention arose when he was retrenched again in 2018 without notice or hearing. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court in 2018, pointing out that many similarly placed individuals were regularized. He cited the case of Umesh Mandal v. State of Bihar as precedent.
The State countered with arguments about delay and the lack of a sanctioned post. They also cited Supreme Court decisions that disallow delayed petitions.
After considering both sides, the Court held that while the petitioner could not be regularized due to the legal bar under Uma Devi’s case (2006), he was still entitled to employment on equitable grounds since he had surrendered his land for public use. The Court invoked the doctrine of estoppel based on the department’s and the minister’s promise.
The retrenchment order dated 15.05.2018 was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated as a daily wage Pump Khalasi with back wages from that date till retirement age.
Significance of the Judgment
This decision reaffirms that government departments are bound by their promises, especially when citizens act upon such assurances to their detriment. It offers hope for individuals who have exchanged personal assets for public benefits but remain uncompensated. The case also underscores judicial sensitivity to principles of fairness and equity.
Legal Issues and Decision
Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization of service: Denied due to delay and legal bar under Uma Devi’s case
Whether retrenchment without notice violated principles of natural justice: Yes
Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement on equitable grounds: Yes
Judgments Referred by Parties
Umesh Mandal v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 20170 of 2016
Judgments Relied Upon by the Court
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108
Shanichar Bind v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 16171 of 2017
Other precedents involving delayed petitions and lack of sanctioned posts
Case Title: Bipin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6624 of 2018
Citations: 2024(4) PLJR (595)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Advocates: Mr. Siyaram Pandey (for the Petitioner), Mr. Arvind Ujjwal (for the State)
Link to the Judgment: –
