Case Background
This case arises from recruitment to the posts of T.B. Health Visitor under the T.B. Control Programme in Bihar. The recruitment followed an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.12.1996 in Civil Appeal No.10758-59 of 1996, directing the State Government to recruit persons on sanctioned posts of Grade-III and IV.
In compliance, the Health Department issued Employment Notice No.1/97, published in a daily newspaper on 05.05.1997, for appointment on 148 posts of T.B. Health Visitor. The petitioner applied, and the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) recommended his name along with another candidate, Manjit Kumar, on 20.08.1999.
In the merit list of recommended candidates, Manjit Kumar was placed at serial number 2, while the petitioner was placed at serial number 13. Despite this recommendation, the petitioner was not appointed, even though candidates who were lower in the merit list than him received appointment orders dated 23.03.2000.
This led to a long series of litigations. The petitioner and others first approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No.142 of 2003, seeking directions for appointment pursuant to Advertisement No.1/97. On 04.04.2003, the Court directed the authorities to take a final decision on the petitioner’s claim within two months.
When this order was not complied with, the petitioner filed MJC No.2097 of 2003 (a contempt proceeding). During its pendency, the State issued a resolution dated 09.12.2003, introducing a new condition that “no candidate trained from a non-Government institution will be appointed on the post of Health Visitor.”
The petitioner challenged this new condition in CWJC No.11497 of 2005. On 30.04.2007, the High Court quashed the additional condition imposed by the resolution dated 09.12.2003 and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment within two months.
The State of Bihar sought review of this order through Civil Review No.213 of 2007, but the review was dismissed on 18.04.2009. Only after this dismissal was the petitioner finally appointed on 27.08.2009 to the post of Health Visitor. He actually joined on 02.09.2009.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner approached the Patna High Court again in CWJC No.22654 of 2011, seeking several consequential service and financial benefits flowing from his selection and late appointment.
He requested that his joining be treated with effect from 23.03.2000, the date when persons below him in the merit list were appointed. He sought fixation of seniority as per the merit list, all notional benefits of continuous service, salary with effect from 30.04.2007 (the date of disposal of CWJC No.11497 of 2005), arrears calculated on the basis of a notional appointment date of 23.03.2000, and coverage under the old pension scheme instead of the contributory pension plan (CPP), as granted to other appointees below him in the merit list.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that his case was on the same footing as that of Manjit Kumar, who was also a candidate from the same BPSC recommendation list. The petitioner relied on the outcome of Manjit Kumar’s litigation to claim similar relief.
The record showed that Manjit Kumar had earlier filed CWJC No.7441 of 2000. That writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed the State Government to appoint him on the post of Health Visitor. The State challenged that order in LPA No.326 of 2009, which was disposed of on 07.07.2009.
In LPA No.326 of 2009, the Division Bench upheld the appointment direction but enhanced the relief. It held that Manjit Kumar would be entitled to appointment with effect from 25.03.2000, the date when the notification appointing others, including those junior to him, was issued. He was held entitled to seniority just below the person above him in the merit list, notional salary computation from that back date, and actual monetary benefits and full salary from 24.10.2008 (the date of disposal of his writ), after accounting for notional benefits up to 23.10.2008.
The respondents in the present case did not dispute that the petitioner was BPSC-recommended and ultimately appointed on 27.08.2009 as per court directions. They accepted that he was regularly working and drawing salary. However, they opposed his claim for backdated appointment, salary from 29.04.2007, interest, and parity with Manjit Kumar.
The State’s stand was that Manjit Kumar had been granted extended benefits only because of explicit directions of the Court in LPA No.326 of 2009. Since there was no similar specific direction in the petitioner’s earlier cases, he could not automatically claim the same treatment.
Justice Partha Sarthy considered the full sequence of events and examined whether the petitioner’s situation was in fact comparable to Manjit Kumar’s. The judgment recorded that:
- The recruitment process was common for both, arising from Employment Notice No.1/97.
- Both the petitioner and Manjit Kumar were recommended by BPSC from the same merit list.
- In that list, the petitioner stood at serial number 13 and Manjit Kumar at serial number 2.
- Persons placed below the petitioner in the same list were appointed on 23.03.2000.
The Court also recounted how the petitioner had been denied appointment despite a valid BPSC recommendation and had to repeatedly approach the Court. His appointment came only after his challenge to the new condition (excluding non-Government trained candidates) succeeded and the State’s review was dismissed.
The judgment then carefully referred to the Division Bench’s observations in LPA No.326 of 2009, particularly paragraphs 11 and 12, where the appellate Court had considered not only appointment but also salary, notional benefits, and seniority. The Division Bench noted that the appeal there was “wholly unjustified and unmerited” and had caused avoidable harassment to the writ petitioner.
After examining the parity between the two cases, Justice Partha Sarthy concluded that the petitioner’s case stood on a similar footing to that of Manjit Kumar. Both were from the same BPSC merit-wise recommendation list, and both had suffered delayed appointment while persons junior to them in merit were appointed earlier.
On this basis, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to reliefs in line with the principle applied in Manjit Kumar’s case. The Court allowed the writ application and issued the following clear directions:
First, the petitioner was held entitled to be treated as appointed with effect from 23.03.2000, i.e., the date on which persons below him in the merit list had been appointed. This backdated appointment was for the purposes of seniority and notional benefits.
Second, the petitioner was granted all notional benefits of service from 23.03.2000. These notional benefits affect seniority, increments, and other continuity-related service advantages, even if not all monetary benefits are paid for the entire period.
Third, as regards actual salary, the Court directed that the petitioner be paid salary from 30.04.2007, the date on which CWJC No.11497 of 2005 (filed by him) was allowed, until the date of his joining, i.e., 02.09.2009. This salary was to be paid within three months.
Fourth, the salary for this period was to be computed taking into account the benefit accruing to him notionally till 29.04.2007. In other words, for salary fixation between 30.04.2007 and 02.09.2009, his pay would be calculated as if his service had been running from 23.03.2000, up to 29.04.2007, for notional increments and similar elements.
Fifth, the Court held that the petitioner would also be covered by the Old Pension Scheme instead of the Contributory Pension Plan, just like the appointees whose positions were lower than his in the merit list. This direction ensured that he was not placed in a worse position in terms of pension merely because the State delayed his appointment.
With these directions, the Patna High Court allowed the writ petition and granted complete relief on the core prayers regarding appointment date, notional benefits, salary for the defined period, and pension scheme.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government job aspirants and employees who face delayed or denied appointments despite being selected in merit lists. The Patna High Court made it clear that when a candidate is duly recommended by a constitutional body like the BPSC and juniors are appointed ahead of him, the State cannot arbitrarily deny appointment or later deny consequential benefits.
The decision ensures that a candidate is not punished for the State’s wrongful actions, policy changes, or litigation strategies. By granting backdated appointment, notional benefits, and salary from a certain date, the Court attempted to restore the petitioner to a position similar to where he would have been if the law had been correctly followed.
The direction to extend the Old Pension Scheme is particularly significant. It protects the petitioner from being forced into a contributory pension regime only because his appointment was delayed, while others from the same recruitment, but lower in merit, enjoyed the older, more beneficial scheme.
For others in similar positions, this judgment shows that the Patna High Court is willing to grant parity with similarly situated candidates and to follow earlier binding decisions when the facts match. It also demonstrates that remedies can include not only appointment orders but also seniority, backdated notional service, and defined periods of back wages.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether a BPSC-recommended candidate, denied timely appointment while juniors were appointed, is entitled to have his appointment backdated with notional benefits and consequential monetary reliefs.
Answer: Yes. The Court held that the petitioner’s appointment shall be treated as effective from 23.03.2000, with all notional benefits and salary from 30.04.2007 till his actual joining on 02.09.2009. - Issue: Whether the petitioner, appointed late due to State action, is entitled to the Old Pension Scheme instead of the Contributory Pension Plan when juniors from the same selection enjoy the older scheme.
Answer: Yes. The Court directed that the petitioner shall be covered by the Old Pension Scheme, as given to appointees whose merit list position was lower than his. - Issue: Whether the petitioner is entitled to parity with Manjit Kumar, another candidate from the same merit list who was granted backdated appointment and financial benefits by the High Court in earlier proceedings.
Answer: Yes. Finding the petitioner’s case on a similar footing to that of Manjit Kumar, the Court followed the same principle and allowed the writ petition with similar reliefs.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Civil Appeal No.10758-59 of 1996 (Hon’ble Supreme Court) – directing the State to recruit on sanctioned Grade-III and IV posts under the T.B. Control Programme.
- CWJC No.7441 of 2000 – Writ petition of Manjit Kumar for appointment as Health Visitor.
- LPA No.326 of 2009 – State’s appeal against the order in CWJC No.7441 of 2000; appeal disposed of on 07.07.2009 with directions on backdated appointment, notional benefits, and salary.
- CWJC No.142 of 2003 – Earlier writ by the petitioner and others for appointment under Advertisement No.1/97.
- MJC No.2097 of 2003 – Contempt application filed for non-compliance of the order dated 04.04.2003.
- CWJC No.11497 of 2005 – Petitioner’s writ challenging new condition imposed by resolution dated 09.12.2003; allowed on 30.04.2007.
- Civil Review No.213 of 2007 – State’s review against order dated 30.04.2007; dismissed on 18.04.2009.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22654 of 2011
Case Title: Shamsher Singh Awadhwale v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 (4) PLJR 504
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Date of Judgment: 07.10.2025
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-15
Respondent Authorities: State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare; Director-in-Chief, Health and Family Welfare Department; Deputy Director, Health and Family Welfare Department; Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda; In-charge Officer, District Tuberculosis Centre, Nalanda; District Provident Fund Officer, Nalanda; District Treasury Officer, Nalanda.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction seeking backdated appointment, notional and monetary service benefits, and old pension coverage relating to appointment as T.B. Health Visitor.
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the official Patna High Court judgment
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.
