Case Background
This judgment covers three writ petitions: CWJC No. 6316 of 2015, CWJC No. 6444 of 2015 and CWJC No. 12124 of 2015. All were heard together because the petitioners are similarly situated non-teaching employees of L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.
The petitioners were first engaged as daily wage employees on different Class III and Class IV posts in various constituent colleges and departments of the University. They continued to work and discharge their duties satisfactorily.
On 06.06.2004, the University’s Syndicate decided to provisionally regularise 199 such workers, including the present petitioners, against Class III and IV posts. This was done through a notification issued by the Registrar, but it was made subject to approval of the State Government.
The State Government delayed its decision. Because of this, a contempt petition (MJC No. 734 of 2001 and analogous cases) was filed before the High Court. On 17.12.2004, the Court gave the State two weeks to act on the recommendation of the University and pass a final order.
Following this direction, the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, issued Memo No. 31 dated 05.01.2005. By this memo, the State granted approval for regularisation of the non-teaching employees of L.N. Mithila University.
Acting on this approval, the University issued notification dated 24.02.2005. It regularised the services of 196 persons, including the petitioners, with effect from 06.06.2004. The notification provided that they would receive salary in the approved pay scale from January 2005, and arrears for the period 06.06.2004 to December 2004 would be paid after the State released funds.
Meanwhile, some other daily wage employees had already been litigating. In LPA No. 835 of 1997 (Awadhesh Prasad Yadav & Others vs The State of Bihar & Others), the Division Bench on 03.02.2004 directed that 11 employees would get arrears from their initial appointment. The State’s challenge in SLP No. 25732 of 2004 (Civil Appeal No. 987 of 2006) was later withdrawn by order dated 18.09.2007.
In CWJC No. 3274 of 2001 and analogous cases, decided on 10.05.2006, this Court ordered that the services of 18 employees, including some whose services were already regularised by the 06.06.2004 notification, be treated as regular from their initial joining date for pensionary benefits. Other incidental benefits, including arrears of salary, were to depend on the Supreme Court’s decision in the above SLP. After the SLP was withdrawn, the position on arrears became clear.
Based on these developments, the University issued another notification dated 26.12.2009. It partially modified the notification dated 24.02.2005 and shifted the date of regularisation of 185 remaining employees (out of the earlier 196) from 06.06.2004 to the dates of their initial appointments. This was done after considering orders of this Court, the Division Bench, the Supreme Court, the Additional Commissioner, HRD, and a Syndicate resolution dated 17.10.2006.
Later, by notification dated 07.01.2012, the University tried to withdraw the 26.12.2009 notification. It stated that the concerned employees would get salary only from 06.06.2004, except for retiral benefits. However, after this Court’s orders in CWJC No. 3274 of 2001 and analogous cases, the University issued another notification dated 02.05.2012 reviving the 26.12.2009 notification. A corrigendum dated 08.05.2012 removed the condition that its operation was subject to the outcome of CWJC No. 19473 of 2010. Thus, the 26.12.2009 notification became fully operative.
Despite this, many employees, including the present petitioners, did not actually receive arrears from their initial appointment dates up to December 2004. Some similarly placed persons, however, did receive such arrears.
Meanwhile, another batch of employees filed CWJC No. 19473 of 2010 and analogous cases, seeking parity with others who had already been given regularisation benefits from their actual date of appointment. On 03.01.2019, relying on the Full Bench judgment in 2018(2) PLJR 929 (Amresh Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar & Anr.) and a Division Bench judgment reported in 2018(2) PLJR 737, a co-ordinate Bench directed that they be treated at par with similarly situated employees.
The Full Bench had held that, in line with the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, when an order of the Court is implemented for some employees, the same benefit should be given to all other identically placed persons without forcing each of them to litigate.
The State challenged the 03.01.2019 order in LPA No. 782 of 2019 (arising from CWJC No. 2687 of 2012). The LPA was dismissed, though liberty was given to file a review. The State accordingly filed Civil Review No. 199 of 2023, which is still pending.
Separately, one employee, Nand Kishore Mehra, filed CWJC No. 13833 of 2004 for salary from his initial joining date. On 08.03.2011 this Court directed him to file a representation before the Vice-Chancellor, who was to pass an order for payment and, if necessary, seek funds from the State. Ultimately, the University decided on 04.03.2015 to pay his arrears, and the State released the amount (Memo No. 90/15).
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners in the present three writ cases asked the Patna High Court for two main reliefs. First, they wanted a direction to the University and State authorities to pay them arrears of salary from the date of their initial appointments till December 2004, in terms of the University’s notification dated 26.12.2009. Second, they sought quashing of the State Government letter dated 29.01.2019 (Letter No. 201) by which the Education Department cancelled the University’s 26.12.2009 notification.
The petitioners argued that they were all appointed and regularised in the same way as other employees who had already received arrears from their initial appointment dates. Eleven workers, whose case was decided in LPA No. 835 of 1997, had obtained this benefit, and the Supreme Court had not interfered. Seventeen more Class III and IV employees had also been paid arrears from their initial appointment till December 2004. Several others, whose serial numbers in the 26.12.2009 notification were listed by the petitioners, had similarly received arrears.
According to the petitioners, when this Court in CWJC No. 3274 of 2001 linked arrears to the outcome of the State’s SLP, and that SLP was later dismissed as withdrawn, there remained no legal basis to deny the same benefit to them. They said that giving arrears to some, while denying them to others with the same type of appointment and regularisation, violated Article 14 of the Constitution and the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011. They also maintained that the Education Department had no power to cancel a University notification issued under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.
The State opposed the writ petitions. It submitted that the petitioners had accepted their regularisation from 06.06.2004 in 2004–2005, and could not now challenge part of the regularisation order after a long delay. The State said that the University could not change the date of regularisation and grant arrears from the initial appointment date without State approval, because this created financial liability on the State exchequer. According to the State, the University had misunderstood and misapplied the orders in LPA No. 835 of 1997 and CWJC No. 3274 of 2001 when issuing the 26.12.2009 notification, and therefore the State’s cancellation of that notification by letter dated 29.01.2019 was justified.
The University took a somewhat different stand. It informed the Court that in 2017, the State had directed it to cancel the shifting back of the date of regularisation for 185 employees. The Vice-Chancellor formed a five-member committee to examine the issue and wrote to the State seeking reconsideration. The University placed on record a letter dated 16.02.2020 from the Director, Higher Education, stating that the judgment in LPA No. 835 of 1997 was a judgment in personem and its benefit could not be automatically extended to others. The University argued that the 26.12.2009 notification, issued in the name of a judicial order, was based on incorrect facts and extraneous considerations and, if implemented, would impose unnecessary financial burden on the State.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha carefully reviewed the factual record. He noted that there was no dispute that the posts on which the petitioners were working were sanctioned posts. The appointments of both the 185 employees and the 11 employees were against these sanctioned posts.
The Court examined a letter dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure-R/1) produced by the University. It showed that, pursuant to an order dated 21.03.1997 in CWJC No. 4252 of 1997, the University had advertised for Class III and IV posts, scrutinised applications, and held interviews. A selection committee shortlisted 274 candidates, including the petitioners. Out of them, the Syndicate selected 199 candidates (185+11), and 196 were actually appointed against sanctioned posts.
The Division Bench in LPA No. 835 of 1997 had specifically directed that the 11 appellants would be entitled to arrears from their dates of appointment. After the State’s SLP against that order was dismissed as withdrawn, those 11 employees were given regularisation and arrears from their initial appointment dates. The same pattern of benefit was later extended, through the 26.12.2009 notification and subsequent actions, to several other similarly situated employees.
The Court took notice that another set of similarly situated employees had obtained relief in CWJC No. 2836 of 2012, CWJC No. 2687 of 2012 and CWJC No. 19473 of 2010, where a co-ordinate Bench on 03.01.2019 allowed their writ petitions following the Full Bench decision in 2018(2) PLJR 929. There the Full Bench had emphasised that, under the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, benefits already implemented for some litigants must be extended to all other identically placed persons.
The Court also referred to the individual case of Nand Kishore Mehra. In his case, this Court had directed that arrears be considered and, on that basis, he was eventually paid salary arrears from the initial date of joining, after the State released the necessary funds.
On the question of power, the Court held that under Section 4(1)(xiv) of the Bihar State University Act, 1976, Universities have the authority to take decisions on regularisation and absorption of their employees. The State Government has no appellate power to interfere with such decisions when the employees are working on sanctioned posts. Therefore, the Education Department’s letter dated 29.01.2019 cancelling the University’s 26.12.2009 notification was without jurisdiction and arbitrary.
The Court further observed that the University could not, during argument, attack the validity of its own notification dated 26.12.2009 on the ground that it caused financial burden or was allegedly based on extraneous considerations. That notification had been issued on the strength of several judicial orders of this Court and the Supreme Court, the Syndicate resolution, and the communication from the HRD Department, and had been reaffirmed by the University through its 02.05.2012 notification.
Justice Sinha made it clear that the authorities cannot grant the benefit of past service to some employees and deny it to others who are identically placed. Such a “pick and choose” approach amounts to discriminatory treatment and violates the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 itself.
On this reasoning, the Court concluded that the State’s cancellation letter dated 29.01.2019 “cannot survive” and set it aside. The Court then directed the respondents, including the State, to ensure that the petitioners are paid arrears of salary from their initial appointment dates till December 2004. This is, however, subject to verification that the petitioners had actually worked during that period.
The Court fixed a time frame: the entire exercise for payment of arrears must be completed within six months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the judgment.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for non-teaching staff of L.N. Mithila University and, more broadly, for employees of State universities in Bihar who were first engaged on daily wage or temporary basis and later regularised.
The Patna High Court has clearly said that once a University has regularised employees on sanctioned posts and, following court directions, decided to count their service from the first day of appointment, the State cannot unilaterally cancel that decision through a departmental letter.
The judgment also reinforces that government and university authorities must avoid discriminatory treatment. If arrears and other benefits are given to some workers under court orders or policies, identically situated workers cannot be left out without strong legal reason.
For ordinary employees, this ruling means that delays or objections raised later by the State cannot easily take away benefits that have already been granted after judicial scrutiny and formal university decisions.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Could the State Government cancel the University’s notification dated 26.12.2009 which shifted the date of regularisation of certain employees to their initial appointment dates?
Answer: No. The Court held that under Section 4(1)(xiv) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, the University alone has power to decide on regularisation and absorption of its employees on sanctioned posts, and the State has no jurisdiction to cancel such a decision. - Issue: Were the petitioners entitled to arrears of salary from their initial appointment dates up to December 2004 on the principle of parity with other similarly placed employees?
Answer: Yes. The Court directed payment of arrears from the initial appointment dates till December 2004, subject to verification of actual work, holding that denial of the same benefit given to identically situated employees would be discriminatory and contrary to the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.
Cases Cited by the Court
- LPA No. 835 of 1997, Awadhesh Prasad Yadav & Ors. vs The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2004(2) PLJR 689.
- Civil Appeal No. 987 of 2006 (arising out of SLP No. 25732 of 2004), order dated 18.09.2007 (SLP dismissed as withdrawn).
- CWJC No. 3274 of 2001 (Rajendra Kamti and others vs L.N. Mithila University & Ors.) and analogous cases, judgment dated 10.05.2006.
- Full Bench judgment reported in 2018(2) PLJR 929 (Amresh Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar & Anr.).
- Division Bench judgment reported in 2018(2) PLJR 737.
- CWJC No. 4252 of 1997, order dated 21.03.1997.
- CWJC No. 19473 of 2010 and analogous cases, order dated 03.01.2019.
- CWJC No. 2836 of 2012 and CWJC No. 2687 of 2012 (connected with LPA No. 782 of 2019).
- CWJC No. 13833 of 2004, order dated 08.03.2011 (Nand Kishore Mehra).
Case Details
Case Numbers: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6316 of 2015; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6444 of 2015; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12124 of 2015.
Case Title: Yogendra Paswan & Ors. vs The State of Bihar & Ors.; Umesh Prasad Singh & Ors. vs The State of Bihar & Ors.; Shree Mohan Jha vs The L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha.
Date of Judgment: 27.09.2024.
Citation: 2024(4) PLJR 396.
Advocates:
- For petitioners in CWJC No. 6316 of 2015: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava.
- For respondents in CWJC No. 6316 of 2015: Mr. R.N. Dubey, AAG 12.
- For petitioners in CWJC No. 6444 of 2015: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava.
- For respondents in CWJC No. 6444 of 2015: Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, AAG 11.
- For petitioner in CWJC No. 12124 of 2015: Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha.
- For respondents in CWJC No. 12124 of 2015: Mr. Md. Raisul Haque, SC 4.
Nature of the Case: Writ petitions under civil writ jurisdiction seeking direction for payment of arrears of salary and quashing of State Government letter cancelling a university notification on regularisation.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment – CWJC No. 6316 of 2015 and analogous cases
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.
