Case Background
The appellant had earlier been appointed as Chairman of the State Employment Committee, Bihar, Patna. He was first appointed by Notification No. 148 dated 09.04.2002 for a period of three years.
On 28.08.2004, the tenure of the State Employment Committee was extended for five years. While he was already holding this post, the appellant was further appointed as Chairman of the Monitoring Committee, Manisana Wage Board, Bihar, Patna (MCMWB).
An Extraordinary issue of the Bihar Gazette dated 30.12.2005 was published regarding the constitution of the Monitoring Committee, Manisana Wage Board. However, in the later proceedings before the Patna High Court, neither side could show any proper legal basis for creation of the post of Chairman, MCMWB or of the Board itself at the State level.
Earlier, the appellant had filed C.W.J.C. No. 16352 of 2014 for payment of pay and allowances for the post of Chairman, State Employment Committee. That writ petition was allowed on 03.07.2015. The Court held that he was entitled to the pay scale and allowances admissible to the Chief Secretary of the State and directed the State to ensure payment in terms of clause 7 of a resolution dated 12.02.1985. During the pendency of that writ, the respondents had passed a resolution on 13.08.2014 fixing a consolidated salary of Rs. 4500/- per month, which became a separate issue.
The State of Bihar challenged the 03.07.2015 order in L.P.A. No. 187 of 2016. That appeal was dismissed on 10/16.05.2016. The State then filed S.L.P.(C) No. 20151 of 2016 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 01.08.2016. A contempt petition (M.J.C. No. 21 of 2016) was also filed for non-compliance, but that was disposed of after compliance.
On 31.03.2017, the appellant filed a representation seeking salary for the post of Chairman, MCMWB, Bihar, Patna. When no relief came, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 16556 of 2017 on 13.11.2017 seeking directions for payment of salary and allowances for the period 09.04.2007 to 31.03.2017 for the MCMWB post and other consequential reliefs.
On 31.07.2018, the learned Single Judge dismissed C.W.J.C. No. 16556 of 2017. Against that dismissal, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 1111 of 2018, which came to be decided by the Division Bench on 03.01.2023.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, heard the appeal. A Joint Secretary of the Labour Resource Department, Government of Bihar, was also present in Court in terms of an earlier order.
The central question was whether the appellant had any legal right to claim salary and allowances for the post of Chairman, Monitoring Committee, Manisana Wage Board, Bihar, Patna, for the period 09.04.2007 to 31.03.2017.
The Court noted that although the appellant was appointed as Chairman, MCMWB on 28.08.2004, the respondents contended that he had never been assigned any duties. More critically, the Bench examined whether the post of Chairman, MCMWB itself was created in a manner recognized by law.
Both sides were unable to show how this post had been created—whether by statute, under Article 309 of the Constitution, or under executive powers traceable to Articles 162 or 166, or by any Act, Rule or Regulation. The Court stressed that any public post in the State must be supported by a proper constitutional or statutory source.
The Court further observed that if a “Board” such as the Manisana Wage Board existed and a Chairman was appointed to monitor it at the State level, there should be a clear enabling provision in law, including how the Board was constituted, its powers, functions, the method of filling posts, and the remuneration structure. None of this material was placed before the Court.
The appellant relied on Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit, a Hindi document showing that he was being given the same salary, allowances and facilities as Chairman, State Employment Committee. The Bench examined Annexure-6 closely.
The Court held that Annexure-6 was not in a form recognized as law. It was treated as merely an internal or incomplete decision, not a final notification or order backed by a specific legal provision.
In support, the Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Anr vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr, (2010) 2 SCC 422, which held that internal communications in the process of decision-making cannot be treated as final orders of competent authority unless issued according to law. A similar view was noted from J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr, (2003) 5 SCC 134.
The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahadeo and Ors. vs. Smt. Sovan Devi & Ors., AIR 2022 SC 4071, which held that office notings are not decisions; a proper decision must be expressed through a notification or order. Applying this, the Court said Annexure-6 lacked the status of a lawful order setting out service conditions and remuneration for Chairman, MCMWB.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the source of power was Article 166 of the Constitution and that Annexure-6 should be read with Article 166. He also referred to the earlier litigation where the appellant had successfully claimed remuneration for the State Employment Committee post.
The Court, however, clarified that in this appeal the appellant was seeking a writ of mandamus for payment of remuneration for the MCMWB post. As such, he had to establish a legal or statutory right for that claim and a corresponding legal obligation on the State.
Relying on Union of India & Anr vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors, (2011) 7 SCC 397, and the classic principle stated in Mani Subrat Jain vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 1 SCC 486, the Bench reiterated that a writ of mandamus can be issued only where there is a judicially enforceable legal right and a corresponding duty on the respondent.
The Court quoted paragraph 9 of Mani Subrat Jain emphasizing that no one can ask for mandamus without a legal right, and that a person must be denied a legal right by someone obliged to act or refrain from acting under law.
Further reliance was placed on M/s Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2022 SC 5572, where the Supreme Court again underlined that mandamus requires a statutory duty and a corresponding right. The Patna High Court extracted paragraphs 60 to 63 of that judgment and underlined that mandamus can issue when an authority fails to exercise its statutory discretion or exercises it wrongly or mala fide, but there must first be a public duty.
The Bench also cited P.U. Joshi & Ors vs. Accountant General & Ors, (2003) 2 SCC 632, and Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani & Ors, (2008) 9 SCC 242, to reinforce that matters like creation or abolition of posts, structuring of cadres, mode of recruitment, qualifications, and service conditions fall within the policy domain of the State. Courts cannot direct how such posts should be created or filled, but they can check whether constitutional or statutory limits are breached.
After reviewing the material, the Court concluded that the appointment of the appellant as Chairman, MCMWB was made without any discernible legal source of power. The State Government had exercised power “at whims and fancies,” without resort to Articles 14 and 16, or any enabling statute.
Importantly, the Court examined the Central law governing wage boards for journalists and newspaper employees: The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act 45 of 1955). It referred to Section 2(a), Section 9 and Section 13-C, which define “Board” and provide for constitution of Wage Boards by the Central Government, and noted the composition requirements, including the need for a Judge of a High Court or Supreme Court as Chairman.
The Court then traced the history of six Wage Boards, including the Manisana Wage Board and the later Majithia Wage Board, through a table showing dates of appointment, report submission and Government acceptance.
The recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board had been accepted by the Central Government. The Court pointed out that the 1955 Act empowers the Central Government to constitute wage boards and enforce their recommendations, not the State Government. Section 12 of the 1955 Act, which sets out the Central Government’s power to enforce recommendations, was quoted in full and interpreted to mean that the State has no role in enforcement of such awards.
The Court also mentioned The Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act, 1958, specifically Section 9, which gives State Government a limited role in recovering money due to working journalists and referring disputes to Labour Courts. Even this, however, did not authorize the State to constitute a separate Monitoring Committee for the Manisana Wage Board or to appoint a Chairman to such a body.
The Bench observed that no document had been produced to show that the Central Government, through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, had entrusted the implementation of Manisana Wage Board Award to the State of Bihar in a manner that could legitimize the appointment of the appellant as Chairman, MCMWB.
Given this background, the Court declared that the actions of the State authorities in appointing the appellant as Chairman, MCMWB, fixing or promising remuneration, and continuing that arrangement for years, were in violation of constitutional provisions and basic rule of law.
The Court invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. Wadhwa (Doctor) vs. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378, to highlight that the rule of law is at the core of the Constitution and that any systematic practice by the executive in violation of constitutional limitations can be challenged and must be checked.
The Bench further referred to Tis Hazari Court vs. Renu & Ors, (2014) 14 SCC 50, and State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. vs. Shaheena Masarat & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 835, to stress that filling public posts must follow Articles 14, 16, 309, 162, 166 etc. In this case, none of these safeguards appeared to have been observed.
The Court also noticed that, when appointing the appellant as Chairman, MCMWB, the State did not even consider that he was already holding the post of Chairman, State Employment Committee. It questioned whether a person can hold dual posts in State organizations or undertakings, and saw the second appointment as a prima facie attempt to accommodate the appellant through arbitrary means.
As to the argument that earlier orders in C.W.J.C. No. 16352 of 2014, L.P.A. No. 187 of 2016 and SLP No. 20151 of 2016 (regarding consolidated salary for Chairman, State Employment Committee) should guide this case, the Bench squarely rejected that. It held that the facts and legal foundation of the appointment to the MCMWB were entirely different, and the earlier yardstick for the State Employment Committee post could not apply.
Ultimately, the Court held that the appellant had failed to establish any legal or statutory right to demand salary for the MCMWB post. Without a validly created post and clear service conditions supported by law, there was no enforceable right, and therefore no question of issuing a writ of mandamus.
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. However, the Court went further and recorded serious concern about the conduct of the State Government and its officers in creating and operating such a post without legal authority, thereby wasting the time of the appellant and the Court.
As a result, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) on the State. The amount was directed to be remitted to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within three months.
The Court also directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar to take note of this judgment and circulate it among all Secretaries and Heads of Departments so that they remain conscious of constitutional provisions and statutory requirements when expressing opinions or issuing executive orders in future.
Finally, while dismissing the appeal, the Court gave liberty to the appellant to file a civil suit for damages for inconvenience caused to him, if so advised, in accordance with law.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for two main reasons.
First, it sends a clear message that the State Government cannot create posts or appoint persons to public positions without proper legal backing. Any such appointment must be supported by the Constitution or a statute, and must follow Articles 14 and 16, which require fairness and equality in public employment.
Second, for individuals who are given posts or titles by government orders that are not rooted in law, this judgment explains that they cannot automatically expect salary or other benefits to be enforced by the High Court through writ petitions. Without a clear legal right and a lawful order, the Court cannot compel payment.
The decision also shows that the Patna High Court is willing to hold the State to account and impose heavy costs when government actions ignore constitutional limits and waste judicial resources.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Did the appellant have a legal and enforceable right to receive salary and allowances for the post of Chairman, Monitoring Committee, Manisana Wage Board, Bihar, Patna?
Answer: No. The Court held that the post of Chairman, MCMWB had no demonstrated statutory or constitutional basis, no properly issued notification or order setting out service conditions, and therefore conferred no enforceable right to remuneration. - Issue: Could the Patna High Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to pay salary based on Annexure-6 and the appellant’s appointment order?
Answer: No. The Court held that Annexure-6 was not a lawful executive order under Article 166, but only an internal or incomplete decision. In the absence of a clear statutory duty and corresponding legal right, a writ of mandamus could not be granted. - Issue: Was the State’s act of appointing the appellant as Chairman, MCMWB legally sustainable?
Answer: No. The Court found that the State had acted without any identifiable source of power in the Constitution or statutes, and had not complied with Articles 14 and 16. The appointment was characterized as arbitrary and contrary to rule of law, leading to imposition of exemplary costs on the State.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Union of India & Anr vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr, (2010) 2 SCC 422
- J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr, (2003) 5 SCC 134
- Mahadeo and Ors. vs. Smt. Sovan Devi & Ors, AIR 2022 SC 4071
- Union of India & Anr vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors, (2011) 7 SCC 397
- Mani Subrat Jain vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 1 SCC 486
- M/s Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2022 SC 5572
- P.U. Joshi & Ors vs. Accountant General & Ors, (2003) 2 SCC 632
- Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani & Ors, (2008) 9 SCC 242
- D.C. Wadhwa (Doctor) vs. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378
- Tis Hazari Court vs. Renu & Ors, (2014) 14 SCC 50
- State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. vs. Shaheena Masarat & Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 835
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1111 of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16556 of 2017
Case Title: Bijay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Citation: 2023 (1) PLJR 742
Advocates: For the appellant: Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Parijat Saurav, AC to AAG-13.
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal (intra-court appeal) against dismissal of a writ petition seeking mandamus for payment of salary and allowances for the post of Chairman, Monitoring Committee, Manisana Wage Board, Bihar, Patna.
Date of Judgment: 03.01.2023
Result: Appeal dismissed; exemplary costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed on the State of Bihar to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund; liberty to appellant to file civil suit for damages.
Link of the judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxMTExIzIwMTgjMSNO-ZM–ak1–V2hJximE=
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.
