The Patna High Court, in a 2021 judgment, clarified that an employee’s pre-regularisation service as a daily wager can be counted in a limited manner toward qualifying service for pension. The case involved six former daily-wage workers of the Road Construction Department who were regularised after decades and then denied pension on the ground that their earlier daily-wage service did not count under the Bihar Pension Rules. The Court allowed the writ petition, directed that a part of their past service be reckoned for pension eligibility, and refused to let the State take advantage of its own delay in regularising similarly placed workers.

The petitioners had originally been engaged on daily wages in 1984 against sanctioned and vacant posts during a State-wide hiring ban for Class III and IV posts. Over time, the State evolved a policy to provide preference and eventual regularisation to those engaged before the cut-off date of 1 August 1985 who had completed 240 days of service. A Five-Member High Power Committee and successive departmental communications acknowledged this policy. Yet the petitioners were regularised only on 30 October 2013—roughly twenty years after the State’s 18 June 1993 policy resolution—and were treated as “fresh appointees,” which the Court found was used to defeat the benefit of their long past service.

Earlier litigation had already directed the department to consider the claim under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules and a Finance Department letter dated 12 August 1969. The department rejected the claim in August 2018, asserting that daily-wage service could not be treated as “government service” and that the employees had been regularised under a 2006 scheme expressly excluding daily-wage years from pension computation. The State leaned on a Full Bench decision in Bhagwan Singh (2014 (4) PLJR 229) to argue that daily-wage service cannot be counted for pension.

The Court, however, examined the record and noted several points. First, the petitioners formed the same homogeneous class as others who were working as daily wagers before 1 August 1985 and had been earlier regularised and granted pensionary benefits; differential treatment without reasonable classification was impermissible. Second, policy decisions are meant for uniform application and cannot be implemented through “pick and choose.” Third, constitutional courts must promote social security measures like post-retiral dues, and “pension is not a bounty” but a right.

On the interplay of pension rules and past service, the Court distinguished the State’s reliance on general exclusions in the 2006 scheme and on the argument that only post-regularisation service counts. It relied, among other authorities, on the Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1990 SC 1607) and on the Supreme Court ruling in Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018), which emphasised that once services are regularised, prior service cannot be ignored for all purposes in a manner that results in denial of statutory benefits. The High Court also drew support from Amarkant Rai to underscore that the State cannot deny social security benefits through technicalities, especially after long, continuous service followed by regularisation.

Crucially, the Court held that the State could not profit from its own wrong: the authorities took decades to regularise the petitioners despite acknowledging their eligibility under the 1993 policy. Having delayed regularisation, the State could not then invoke the introduction of the New Pension Scheme to deny them pensionary benefits. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioners’ past service be counted “for the purpose of qualified pensionary service i.e. only to the extent of 10 years,” and allowed the writ to that extent without costs.

In sum, the Patna High Court’s 2021 decision ensures that earlier daily-wage service, where followed by regularisation after long departmental delay, will not be entirely wiped out; at least a defined portion (here, up to 10 years) must be recognised for qualifying service so that eligible retirees are not deprived of pension.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment has clear implications for long-serving daily-wage or muster-roll workers who were later regularised:

• It affirms that “pension is not a bounty” and recognises pension as a social security right, especially where the State has benefited from decades of service and delayed regularisation.
• It discourages departments from using “fresh appointment” labels to erase past service for all purposes, where the reality shows policy-backed continuity and eventual regularisation.
• It introduces a workable middle path: count a limited block of past service (here, up to 10 years) for qualifying pension service, balancing the Pension Rules’ framework with equitable considerations.
• For government departments, it underscores that policy decisions must be implemented uniformly and that arbitrary “pick and choose” in regularisation or pension eligibility will not withstand judicial scrutiny.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether pre-regularisation daily-wage service can be counted toward pension under the Bihar Pension Rules when employees are later regularised:
  • Decision: Yes, but in a limited manner. The Court directed that past service be counted toward qualifying pensionary service “to the extent of 10 years,” with the remainder not counted for pension quantification.
  • Reasoning: The petitioners belonged to the same class as others who had been regularised earlier and granted pension; the State’s delay and inconsistent application of policy could not deprive them. Once regularised, ignoring all past service for qualification would be inequitable and contrary to social-security objectives.
• Whether the State could rely on the 2006 scheme’s exclusion of daily-wage years and the New Pension Scheme to deny pension:
  • Decision: No. The State cannot take advantage of its own delay in regularising eligible workers and then defeat pension claims by invoking a later scheme or NPS.
  • Reasoning: The record showed long-standing policy (1993) to regularise daily wagers meeting the cut-off and service conditions; treating the petitioners as “fresh appointees” after two decades of departmental delay would be arbitrary and unjust.
• Whether equal treatment with similarly situated daily wagers regularised earlier was required:
  • Decision: Yes. Policy decisions must be applied uniformly; “pick and choose” in regularisation and pensionary benefits is impermissible.
  • Reasoning: The petitioners formed the same homogeneous group (daily wagers engaged before 01.08.1985 against sanctioned vacant posts) as others who were granted pension after earlier regularisation.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Bhagwan Singh (Full Bench), 2014 (4) PLJR 229 — relied upon by the State to argue that daily-wage service cannot be counted under the Pension Rules.
• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 — discussed in the context of regularisation and its limits (distinguished in light of later regularisation).
• RN Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, AIR 1993 SC 352 — on approbate and reprobate, cited by the State.
• Union of India v. Wg. Cdr. Subrata Das, AIR 2019 SC (Supp) 199 — on approbate and reprobate, cited by the State.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 — relied upon to recognise the effect of regularisation on counting prior service.
• Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018 — applied to emphasise that, after regularisation, long pre-regularisation service cannot be ignored for statutory benefits; used to allow the writ.
• Amarkant Rai — referred to while allowing the writ alongside Netram Sahu.

Case Title
Bimal Kumar Roy & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
CWJC No. 18826 of 2018 (Patna High Court)

Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 823

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay.

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty, Advocate.
• For the respondent-State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, Standing Counsel 26.

Link to Judgment
MTUjMTg4MjYjMjAxOCMxI04=-Ep346jn3–ak1–vM=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.