Case Background
The petitioners were engaged on contract basis by Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation (BSIDC). Their appointment letters stated that the engagement was for one year, with the possibility of extension.
The petitioners were appointed on 12.06.2019. Before the one-year period ended, their services were discontinued on 16.10.2019. The order described this as displacement in the interest of administration.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners first approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22056 of 2019. On 13.02.2020, that writ petition was disposed of. The Court did not grant direct relief, but allowed the petitioners to file a representation before the competent authority.
The petitioners then submitted a representation on 20.02.2020 to the authorities, seeking relief on the basis of a State Government policy dated 17.09.2018. They claimed that under this policy they should either be continued or adjusted in some other government organisation or corporation where contractual staff were required. Their representation was rejected on 24.07.2020 by the Industries Department, communicated to them on 22.09.2020.
After this rejection, the petitioners filed the present writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 2050 of 2021) before the Patna High Court challenging both the termination and the rejection of their representation.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri, heard arguments from both sides. The central dispute was whether the petitioners, as contract employees of BSIDC, could claim the benefit of the State Government policy dated 17.09.2018 for accommodation or shifting to other government corporations.
The petitioners asked for several reliefs. They wanted the Court to quash the order dated 24.07.2020, by which the Industries Department rejected their claim, as well as related orders in Annexure-4 series. They also prayed for quashing the termination order dated 16.10.2019 bearing Memo No. 540/G/Patna issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BSIDC.
Further, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate them on their previous posts. They requested directions to adjust, absorb or shift their services to any other government units or government undertaking units, along with full arrears and consequential benefits from the date of termination (16.10.2019) till final reinstatement or absorption. They also claimed arrears of Rs. 10,000 per month from the date of initial appointment till termination, and compensation for alleged mental, physical and economic harassment.
The petitioners’ main legal argument rested on the State policy dated 17.09.2018. According to them, this policy allowed contractual employees of certain corporations to be adjusted or shifted to other government organisations where similar services were needed. They contended that, in view of this policy and a later clarification dated 05.02.2021, they too were entitled to be adjusted in some other corporation even after their displacement from BSIDC.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the State Government itself, by communication dated 05.02.2021, clarified that the policy dated 17.09.2018 “is included with the BSIDC”. On that basis, they claimed they should be covered by that policy and protected from sudden displacement without being accommodated in another organisation.
On the other hand, the respondent-Corporation opposed the petition. Their counsel submitted that the petitioners had not placed on record the complete policy decision dated 17.09.2018. The Corporation pointed out that, when properly read, the policy under Item No. 19 applied only to three specified corporations.
The respondents argued that, as on the date of the petitioners’ displacement on 16.10.2019, BSIDC was not one of the corporations covered by the policy dated 17.09.2018. Therefore, contractual employees of BSIDC could not claim any right under that policy to be accommodated in another corporation.
The Corporation also referred to the “Sankalp” (resolution) of the General Administration Department dated 05.02.2021. According to them, this resolution included BSIDC within the ambit of the 17.09.2018 policy only from that later date, and the inclusion was expressly prospective. Hence, it would not benefit persons whose services had already been discontinued in 2019.
The Court examined the material on record, including the relevant extracts of the policy decision dated 17.09.2018. This policy dealt with accommodating contractual employees of certain corporations. The Court reproduced the relevant portion of Item No. 19 of the policy.
From the text of Item No. 19, the Court found that the policy mentioned only three entities: Bihar Foundation, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (in Hindi text) and one more authority described as “Aadharit Sanrachna Vikas Pradhikaran (IDaA)”. BSIDC was not among these.
On this basis, the Court held that the policy decision dated 17.09.2018 did not cover BSIDC employees. The “material information” in the policy itself showed that it was restricted to three specific corporations, and there was no clause including BSIDC as on that date.
The Court then considered the later resolution of the Administration Department dated 05.02.2021, which the petitioners relied upon to say that BSIDC had been brought under the 2018 policy. The Court accepted the submission that this inclusion was only prospective. It did not change the legal position with effect from an earlier date or give retrospective benefit.
In other words, even if BSIDC became part of the policy framework in 2021, that change could not be used to question or undo a displacement that had occurred on 16.10.2019, or to challenge the rejection order dated 24.07.2020.
On these facts and legal findings, the Court concluded that the petitioners had not made out a case for being accommodated in any other corporation under the State policy dated 17.09.2018. Without the support of that policy, their broader prayers for reinstatement, absorption elsewhere, and consequential benefits had no legal foundation.
Accordingly, in paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The orders of displacement and rejection of representation remained undisturbed.
After the main judgment, the petitioners’ counsel, on instructions, raised an additional point. He submitted that the petitioners had not been paid “up to date salary”. This was a factual allegation separate from the main policy issue.
The Corporation’s counsel disputed this claim. Since there was a clear dispute of fact regarding payment of salary, the Court did not adjudicate it directly in the writ proceedings. Instead, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh application with full material information regarding any unpaid salary.
The Court directed that such representation be filed before the Corporation within four weeks from the date of the judgment. On receipt of the representation, the Corporation was directed to decide it in accordance with law and to communicate its decision within three months from the date of receipt.
Thus, while the petitioners did not get reinstatement or absorption, they retained the opportunity to pursue any legitimate claim for outstanding salary before the Corporation.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for contractual employees working in public sector bodies in Bihar, especially those under various corporations and undertakings. It clarifies that not every general-sounding government policy automatically benefits all contract workers.
The Patna High Court made it clear that employees can only rely on a policy if their organisation is expressly covered by that policy at the relevant time. If an organisation is added to the policy later, that inclusion will normally work only for the future, unless the policy itself clearly says it is retrospective.
For BSIDC contract workers who were removed before 05.02.2021, this judgment signals that they cannot insist on adjustment or absorption in other corporations merely on the strength of the 17.09.2018 policy. Their rights will depend on their own appointment terms and any other applicable rules, not on a policy that did not cover BSIDC at the time of their termination.
The judgment also shows that even where courts dismiss demands for reinstatement or absorption, they may still protect basic monetary claims. Here, the Court gave the petitioners a route to pursue any unpaid salary through a formal representation, with a time-bound direction to the Corporation to decide it.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Were BSIDC contractual employees terminated on 16.10.2019 entitled to be accommodated or shifted to other corporations under the State policy dated 17.09.2018?
Answer: No. The Court held that the 17.09.2018 policy applied only to three specified corporations and did not cover BSIDC at that time. Later inclusion of BSIDC by resolution dated 05.02.2021 was only prospective. - Issue: Should the High Court quash the termination order and the order dated 24.07.2020 rejecting the petitioners’ representation, and direct reinstatement with arrears and compensation?
Answer: No. As the policy relied upon did not apply to BSIDC on the relevant dates, the petitioners failed to make out a legal right to reinstatement or absorption, and the writ petition was dismissed. - Issue: How should the allegation of non-payment of up-to-date salary be handled?
Answer: The Court did not decide this disputed fact in the writ petition, but permitted the petitioners to file a detailed representation before the Corporation, which must decide it within three months.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judicial decisions have been cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2050 of 2021
Case Title: Sujit Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Date of Judgment: 30.11.2021
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 429
Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, G.A.; Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
For BSIDC: Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Civil writ petition challenging termination of contractual employment and seeking accommodation/absorption in other government corporations, along with consequential benefits.
Link to Judgment: Full text of 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.
