appointment disposed of — Patna High Court, 2023

Case Background

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Bihar Pradesh Vidyut Shramik Sangh, a workers’ union, through its General Secretary. The union approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11460 of 2022.

The grievance was about the contractual engagement and repeated extension of tenure of Respondent No. 7, who was working as Deputy General Manager (Personnel) in Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited and its allied companies.

The petitioner union relied on a company memo dated 11.07.2019 (Memo No. 13) which, according to them, laid down the rules for contractual employment and extension of contract in Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited and its subsidiary/allied companies.

The union alleged that the extensions of Respondent No. 7’s contract from 01.10.2019 to 30.09.2020 (vide Office Order 1651 dated 31.08.2019), then from 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2021, and again from 01.10.2021 to 30.09.2022 were against this memo.

The petitioner also referred to several complaint letters sent earlier by a Mazdoor Union raising various allegations against Respondent No. 7. On this basis, the union sought directions from the Court for punitive action and recovery of amounts paid to Respondent No. 7, and protection for those who had complained against him.

What the Court Examined and Decided

The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, heard the matter. The oral judgment was delivered on 02.01.2023 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri.

The petitioner’s main prayers were fourfold. First, the union wanted punitive action against Respondent No. 7 on the ground that his contractual engagement and extensions as Deputy General Manager (Personnel) were in violation of Memo No. 13 dated 11.07.2019.

Second, the petitioner sought an inquiry into alleged irregularities said to have been committed by Respondent No. 7 during his official tenure. These allegations were based on various complaint letters of the Mazdoor Union, which Respondent No. 7 himself had acknowledged in his Letter No. 594 dated 20.02.2020 addressed to the General Manager (HR/Adm.), Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited.

Third, the petitioner prayed for recovery of the amounts paid to Respondent No. 7 for the period of his contractual engagement, on the ground that his appointment and extensions were contrary to the company’s memo on contractual employment.

Fourth, the petitioner requested directions that no punitive or adverse action should be taken in the service records of those staff members who had made complaints against Respondent No. 7, claiming protection for whistle-blowers.

In support of their allegations, the petitioner placed on record a “short description” of alleged irregularities concerning Respondent No. 7:

One allegation related to appointment and regularization of Switch Board Operators (SBO)/Assistant Operators under Patna Circle/Patna Transmission Zone without proper verification of educational and technical qualifications, during the period when Respondent No. 7 was Deputy Director (Personnel). It was stated that around 20 employees were later dismissed after verification revealed fake documents.

Another allegation was that Respondent No. 7 had recommended or proposed merger of certain posts and creation of 39 posts of clerical cadre Administrative Officer in 2016, allegedly beyond the State Government’s limits and causing financial burden on the company. A further allegation claimed that he again recommended creation of 127 posts of clerical cadre Administrative Officer, allegedly ignoring earlier office proposals and policies, thus causing heavy and unnecessary financial burden.

It was also alleged that Respondent No. 7 got himself engaged on contract as DGM (Personnel) without submitting a health certificate and an affidavit about absence of vigilance cases, police cases, or departmental proceedings, despite such requirements being part of the rules and policies of the company and State Government.

On the other side, the Court examined an affidavit filed by Shri Sanjeev Hans, Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Bihar, who was also holding additional charge as Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited.

In paragraph 3 of this affidavit, the officer stated that he had the highest regard for the Court and respect for the rule of law, and that he was duty bound to place all relevant facts, rules, circulars and decisions before the Court. He clarified that Respondent No. 7, an ex-Deputy General Manager (Personnel), was appointed on contract basis after his superannuation on 30.09.2019 from the post of Deputy General Manager (Administration).

The affidavit further recorded that Respondent No. 7’s contractual appointment was from 01.10.2019 to 30.09.2020 and that he was allowed yearly extensions, lastly from 01.10.2022 to 30.09.2023. However, crucially, it was stated that Respondent No. 7 had already resigned on 01.12.2022 to join another assignment as General Manager (Cricket Operation), Bihar Cricket Association.

In light of this affidavit, the Court observed that the petition did not survive for consideration. With the resignation of Respondent No. 7, the core grievance about his continuing appointment or further extension had become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

At this stage, the petitioner’s counsel argued that, according to them, the appointment of Respondent No. 7 had been wholly illegal and contrary to the law governing the post, and therefore he should not be entitled to monetary benefits for the period he worked.

The Court addressed this contention clearly. It held that even if an appointment is irregular or illegal, when a person has actually discharged the duties of the post, he is entitled to the consolidated pay or remuneration attached to that post for the period of service.

Therefore, the High Court refused to accept the request for recovery of salary or denial of monetary benefits to Respondent No. 7. The Court indicated that there was no question of holding any inquiry for the purpose of depriving him of pay already drawn for work done.

However, the Bench did not stop there. It issued a clear reminder and direction to the State and its instrumentalities for the future. The Court stated that the State Government, in future, must make appointments strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, and while adhering to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which deal with equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment.

The Court further recorded that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Renu & Others vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and another, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 50, should be taken note of for future appointments. By doing so, the Patna High Court stressed the importance of transparent, lawful and fair recruitment and appointment practices, especially in public sector entities.

Thus, while the specific complaint against Respondent No. 7’s continuation lost its force due to his resignation, the Court used the occasion to reinforce legal standards for future appointments and to clarify the position on salary for work already done under an irregular or illegal appointment.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is important for employees, unions, and public authorities in Bihar, especially in public sector undertakings like power companies.

First, it clarifies that if a person has actually worked in a post, even if the appointment is later alleged to be irregular or illegal, the employer generally cannot deny the salary for the period of work. Attempts to recover such salary are unlikely to succeed when the person has discharged duties during that period.

Second, the Patna High Court has reminded the State Government and its companies that future appointments must strictly comply with legal provisions and constitutional requirements under Articles 14 and 16. This reinforces the need for fairness, non-arbitrariness, and transparency in recruitment and contractual engagements.

Third, the reference to the Supreme Court decision in Renu & Others vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and another signals that the principles laid down by the Apex Court on regular, transparent and advertisement-based public appointments must be followed by authorities in Bihar as well.

For trade unions and employees, the case shows that, even if they raise complaints about alleged irregular appointments, once the concerned person has resigned and is no longer in service, the court may treat many of the grievances as having become infructuous, focusing instead on broader legal compliance for the future.

Legal Issues and Answers

• Issue: Whether the Patna High Court should direct punitive action and recovery of salary against a contractually appointed Deputy General Manager (Personnel) whose appointment and extensions were alleged to violate company rules.
  Answer: The Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous after noting that the officer had already resigned, and held that even if the appointment was irregular or illegal, he was entitled to the consolidated pay for the duties discharged. No direction for recovery or punitive action was issued.
• Issue: Whether the State and public sector companies have any guidance for future appointments arising from this case.
  Answer: Yes. The Court directed that future appointments must be made in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and in adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Renu & Others vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and another, (2014) 14 SCC 50, should be followed.

Cases Cited by the Court

• Renu & Others vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and another, (2014) 14 SCC 50.

Case Details

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11460 of 2022

Case Title: Bihar Pradesh Vidyut Shramik Sangh through its General Secretary, Ranjeet Kumar Mishra vs. The Chief Secretary through State of Bihar & Others

Citation: 2023 (1) PLJR 729

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Date of Judgment: 02.01.2023

Advocates:

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Rai, Advocate
• For the Respondents: Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate; Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate; Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate

Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Nature of the Case: Writ petition (Civil) under Article(s) of the Constitution, seeking directions regarding alleged irregular contractual appointment and extensions, punitive action, recovery of pay, and protection for complainants.

Link of the judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTE0NjAjMjAyMiMxI04=-JJbKdTAl7fs=

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.