Patna High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal, Upholds Employee’s Right to Salary and Service Regularisation — 2022

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court, in its judgment dated 12 December 2022, dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Bihar and upheld the decision of a Single Judge directing that an Assistant Engineer’s entire period of non-posting be treated as “waiting for posting” and not as leave. The Court held that the delay in giving posting orders and the subsequent lack of communication were entirely due to the State’s administrative lapse, not the employee’s fault.

This case involved an officer in the Water Resources Department (formerly Irrigation Department), who had joined service on 1 June 1982. He was initially posted at Siwan, but there was no sanctioned post available at that location. As a result, he remained unposted from June 1982 to December 1986. Later, he was given another posting order at Ranchi on 20 October 1982, but it was either never communicated or not properly executed. Finally, on 29 December 1986, the department issued a fresh posting order to the Planning and Monitoring Division in Patna.

The employee had filed a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 8913 of 2008) seeking directions that the period from 1 June 1982 to 31 December 1986 be treated as “waiting for posting,” with full salary, increments, and service regularisation. He also sought arrears of pay due under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme effective from 9 August 1999.

The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition on 24 April 2018, directing that the entire disputed period be treated as duty period, not leave, and that consequential benefits be granted. The State of Bihar filed a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 1381 of 2018) challenging that order, arguing that the employee had not discharged duties during the disputed period and therefore was not entitled to salary or service benefits.

However, the Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh rejected the State’s contention. The Bench observed that there was a “serious lapse” on the part of the authorities in not issuing timely posting orders and not initiating any disciplinary proceedings for alleged unauthorised absence.

The Court noted:

“Even assuming that the posting order was communicated, there is total inaction on the part of the appellants. They did not place the respondent under suspension or initiate any disciplinary inquiry for the alleged absence. Therefore, the lapse is entirely of the department.”

Since the department had never treated the employee’s absence as unauthorised, nor issued any show-cause or suspension order, it could not later penalise him by treating the period as leave.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the order of the Single Judge was correct and that no ground existed to interfere with it. The appeal by the State was dismissed.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment is important for public servants and government employees awaiting posting or suffering from administrative inaction. The Court reinforced that:

1. Employees cannot be penalised for the State’s delay or negligence. If the government fails to issue or communicate posting orders, the employee cannot be blamed for not joining duty.
2. The period of “waiting for posting” must be treated as service period, with full salary and consequential benefits.
3. Administrative fairness and accountability: The judgment underscores that when departments act casually in personnel matters, the consequences cannot be transferred to the employee.
4. No action means no misconduct: If the department does not initiate disciplinary action for alleged absence, the absence cannot be deemed unauthorised later.

For government departments, this ruling serves as a reminder to maintain proper communication and timely issuance of postings to avoid unnecessary litigation.

For employees, especially those in transfer-heavy departments like Water Resources, Education, and Health, this judgment ensures that bureaucratic delays do not affect their career progression or financial entitlements.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Whether the employee’s period of non-posting (1982–1986) could be treated as leave or as “waiting for posting”?
  Decision: It should be treated as “waiting for posting.” The delay was due to administrative lapses, not employee negligence.
• Whether the employee was entitled to salary and service benefits for that period?
  Decision: Yes. Since the State never issued a suspension or initiated disciplinary proceedings, the employee is entitled to full salary, increments, and benefits.
• Whether the Single Judge erred in granting relief?
  Decision: No. The Division Bench affirmed the reasoning that the department’s inaction caused the situation and upheld the Single Judge’s order in full.
• Whether the State had any justification for appeal?
  Decision: No. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

None mentioned specifically, but the reasoning follows principles of equity, fairness, and service jurisprudence under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Case Title

The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kripa Shankar Singh

Case Number

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1381 of 2018
in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8913 of 2008

Citation(s)

2023 (1) PLJR 205

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• Mr. Sudish Kumar, AC to PAAG 2 — for the appellants (State of Bihar)
• Mr. Ajeet Kumar, GA 9 — for the appellants
• Mr. Ranjay Kumar Patel, Advocate — for the respondent (employee)
• Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate — for the respondent

Link to Judgment

MyMxMzgxIzIwMTgjMSNO-naQ2rb–am1–X9aY=

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.