Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court delivered an important decision in February 2021 concerning the pension rights of six retired employees of the Road Construction Department. These employees had originally been appointed on a daily wage/muster roll basis in 1984 against sanctioned vacant posts during a period when regular appointments were banned.
In 1993, the Government of Bihar issued a resolution allowing those who were engaged before 1 August 1985 and had completed 240 days of service to be considered for preferential regular appointment. Many workers benefited from this scheme and were regularized earlier, but these petitioners had to wait almost 20 years before they were given regular appointments on 30 October 2013.
When they retired, they requested that their past service (from the 1980s until their formal regularization in 2013) be counted for pension and gratuity. Their claim was rejected in 2015 and again in 2018, on the ground that daily wage service cannot be treated as government service for pensionary purposes under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, and under the 2006 Government resolution.
The petitioners argued that this amounted to discrimination, since similarly placed employees had already been granted benefits. They also relied upon Supreme Court decisions, such as State of Bihar v. Sunny Prakash (2013) 3 SCC 559 and Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018), where long years of service as daily wagers were recognized for gratuity and retiral benefits once regularized.
The State, on the other hand, relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Bihar (2014 (4) PLJR 229), which held that daily wage service cannot be counted for pension under the Bihar Pension Rules.
The Court noted that pension is not a bounty but a right linked to social security, and that the petitioners had worked continuously against sanctioned posts prior to the cut-off date. However, it also examined the binding effect of government resolutions and previous precedents.
Ultimately, while the Court acknowledged the hardship faced by the petitioners, it upheld the government’s stand that daily wage service cannot be automatically counted for pensionary benefits under the 2006 scheme, unless specifically provided. The writ petition was thus dismissed, leaving it to the legislature or government to reconsider such cases on humanitarian grounds.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For employees: Daily wage service, even if long and continuous, does not automatically count towards pension unless the government specifically recognizes it.
- For government: The judgment reinforces the binding nature of policy resolutions, like the 2006 scheme, which restrict recognition of daily wage service.
- For society: It highlights the tension between welfare principles and strict rules, raising the question of whether workers who devoted decades of service should be left without full retiral benefits.
- Policy angle: The Court indirectly emphasized the need for a humane policy to protect such workers from financial insecurity after retirement.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Issue 1: Whether daily wage service before regularization can be counted for pension/gratuity under Bihar Pension Rules.
- Decision: No. Daily wage service does not qualify as government service under the 2006 resolution and Rule 59 of Bihar Pension Rules.
- Issue 2: Whether petitioners suffered discrimination compared to similarly placed workers.
- Decision: The Court found no enforceable right to claim parity because appointments and benefits were governed by specific schemes.
- Issue 3: Whether Supreme Court rulings like Netram Sahu apply.
- Decision: Distinguished. Those rulings dealt with gratuity under a different law, not pension under Bihar rules.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- State of Bihar v. Sunny Prakash, (2013) 3 SCC 559
- Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018
- Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, (2015) 2 SCC 437
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2014 (4) PLJR 229 (Full Bench, Patna High Court)
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 (distinguished)
- Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607
Case Title
Petitioners (Retired Road Construction Department Workers) v. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18826 of 2018
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 Petitioners: Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty, Advocate
- For the Respondents/State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, SC-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.
