Introduction:
The Patna High Court has held that the treatment of a long-serving daily-wage employee as a “fresh appointee” at the fag end of his career, particularly when such treatment results in a reduction in pay and adversely affects his retirement and pensionary claims, requires careful reconsideration by the competent authority. The Court emphasised that where similarly situated employees had received the benefit of regularization from an earlier date, the claim of an employee who had served continuously for several decades could not be examined in isolation.
Justice Kumar Manish was hearing a writ petition filed by a petitioner who had initially been engaged as a daily-wage employee under the Flood Control Circle, Samastipur, in 1980. His engagement was against a sanctioned and vacant Class-III post of Typist. According to the petitioner, despite having joined in 1980, several employees who were junior to him and had entered service subsequently were regularized between 1984 and 1988, whereas his own claim remained unaddressed for years.
The petitioner’s service history thereafter became the subject of repeated litigation. He had approached the Patna High Court earlier seeking appropriate relief in relation to his remuneration and regularization. On July 15, 1999, the Court directed that he be paid salary at the minimum of the applicable time scale for the period during which he had actually worked on the post. The earlier writ proceedings were subsequently disposed of on December 17, 2003, with a direction to the authorities to consider his case for regularization.
Despite the judicial direction, the petitioner’s claim was not immediately resolved. He was therefore compelled to approach the High Court again. On July 7, 2011, the Court directed the authorities to consider his case in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247.
The authorities ultimately regularized the petitioner’s services by an order dated December 5, 2012. However, the manner in which the regularization was implemented gave rise to the present dispute. Rather than recognizing the petitioner’s long period of service for the purposes claimed by him, the authorities treated the regularization as a fresh appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk.
The petitioner joined the post on December 6, 2012, but did so under protest. The treatment of his appointment as a fresh appointment had a direct financial consequence: his basic pay was reduced by ₹2,110 per month. The petitioner also relied upon the treatment extended to several employees who were junior to him and who, according to his case, had been granted notional regularization with effect from April 1, 1988 for purposes including retirement and pensionary benefits.
The controversy before Justice Kumar Manish therefore extended beyond the mere question of whether the petitioner had ultimately been regularized. The issue was whether the legal and financial consequences of that regularization had been correctly determined, particularly in view of the petitioner’s prolonged service from 1980, the earlier judicial directions, the treatment of similarly situated employees, the claim of pay protection under Rule 78 of the Bihar Service Code and the claim for counting past service for pensionary purposes under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
The Court was consequently required to examine whether the authorities could legitimately treat an employee who had rendered decades of service as a fresh entrant at a stage when he was nearing the end of his career, without adequately considering the consequences of such classification.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner challenged the manner in which the authorities had implemented his regularization order dated December 5, 2012. His principal grievance was that although his services had finally been regularized after decades of continuous service, the authorities had effectively disregarded his long service by treating him as a fresh appointee to the post of Lower Division Clerk.
The petitioner relied upon the circumstances of his original engagement. He had entered service on June 16, 1980 as a daily-wage employee against a sanctioned and vacant Class-III post of Typist. According to him, his engagement was therefore not against a non-existent or purely temporary requirement. He continued to work for the department over a prolonged period and remained in service while several employees who had joined after him were regularized.
The petitioner submitted that the differential treatment became particularly significant because a number of employees junior to him had allegedly received notional regularization from April 1, 1988. Such treatment, according to the petitioner, had consequences for retirement and pensionary benefits. He therefore contended that his own claim had to be examined in the context of the treatment given to those similarly situated employees rather than by simply looking at the date on which the department formally issued his regularization order.
The petitioner also pointed to the history of the litigation. The High Court had already directed payment of salary at the minimum of the applicable time scale in its order dated July 15, 1999. The proceedings were thereafter disposed of on December 17, 2003 with a direction to consider his regularization. When the authorities still failed to resolve the matter, another round of litigation resulted in the High Court’s order dated July 7, 2011, requiring consideration of his case in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari.
According to the petitioner, the subsequent regularization order could not be viewed independently of this judicial history. He had been continuously working since 1980, had repeatedly sought regularization, and had ultimately obtained regularization only after the High Court intervened. Treating the December 5, 2012 order as creating an entirely new relationship of service, he argued, would effectively deprive him of the benefit of the long period during which he had already worked for the State.
A particularly important aspect of the petitioner’s challenge concerned his pay. Since the department treated him as a fresh appointee, his basic pay was reduced by ₹2,110 per month. He had joined the post of Lower Division Clerk on December 6, 2012, but expressly did so under protest. The petitioner argued that such a reduction was inequitable, especially after he had spent decades in service.
He also invoked Rule 78 of the Bihar Service Code in support of his claim for pay protection. His case was that the applicable service rules and the circumstances of his regularization required the authorities to consider whether his existing pay could be protected instead of mechanically fixing his salary as that of a new entrant.
The petitioner further sought recognition of his past service for pensionary purposes under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Since the consequences of the department’s approach extended beyond his immediate monthly salary and could affect his retirement benefits, he urged the Court to require a comprehensive reconsideration of his service history and entitlements.
The respondents, represented by Mr. Sudheshwar Bhushan, A.C. to G.P.-7, opposed the petitioner’s claims. The State’s position, as reflected from the dispute before the Court, concerned the legal effect of the regularization order dated December 5, 2012 and the consequences flowing from the petitioner’s regular appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk.
The respondents’ position effectively required the Court to accept the administrative treatment under which the petitioner’s regularization operated as a fresh appointment. From that standpoint, the department had treated the date of regularization as the relevant point for determining the petitioner’s position in the regular service, resulting in a corresponding fixation of pay.
However, the Court was not persuaded that the matter could be conclusively resolved merely by treating the 2012 order as a fresh appointment without examining the surrounding circumstances. In particular, the Court considered it necessary for the competent authority to examine the effect of the petitioner’s long service, the earlier judicial orders, the treatment of similarly situated employees and the relevant service rules.
The dispute therefore ultimately turned on whether the administrative authorities had adequately considered all relevant factors before determining that the petitioner should be treated as a fresh entrant. The Court did not itself finally grant every benefit claimed by the petitioner. Instead, it directed the competent authority to undertake a fresh and legally informed consideration of the claims.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Kumar Manish of the Patna High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent that the petitioner’s claims were required to be reconsidered by the competent authority. The Court’s approach was based substantially on the petitioner’s unusually long period of service, the circumstances surrounding his regularization and the alleged disparity between his treatment and that of similarly situated employees.
The Court first took note of the petitioner’s service history. He had entered employment as a daily-wage worker in 1980 and continued working for the department for several decades. His initial engagement was against a sanctioned and vacant Class-III post of Typist. The Court also considered the fact that his case for regularization had remained pending despite the petitioner’s repeated efforts and earlier judicial directions.
The procedural history was significant. In 1999, the High Court had directed that the petitioner be paid salary at the minimum of the applicable time scale for the period during which he had worked on the post. The proceedings were later disposed of in 2003 with a direction to the authorities to consider his regularization.
When the authorities did not act upon the issue satisfactorily, the petitioner again approached the High Court. The order dated July 7, 2011 directed consideration of his case in the light of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari. The Supreme Court’s decision in that case is relevant to the question of regularization of certain long-serving temporary or daily-wage employees in the context of the principles laid down in relation to irregular appointments.
The petitioner’s service was eventually regularized in December 2012. Yet the Court found it necessary to examine the consequences of the manner in which that regularization had been carried out. The petitioner was treated as a fresh appointee to the post of Lower Division Clerk, despite having worked continuously for a very long period.
The Court found this approach particularly troubling because the petitioner was already at the fag end of his career. The classification of such a long-serving employee as a fresh entrant did not merely have a formal effect. It resulted in a reduction of his basic pay by ₹2,110 per month and potentially affected his claims relating to retirement and pension.
The Court observed that treating a long-serving employee as a fresh appointee at the end of his career “runs contrary to the constitutional ethos.” The Bench then relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, decided on August 19, 2025, which the High Court described as a “recent and highly instructive decision.”
The reliance on Dharam Singh was important because the High Court considered the Supreme Court’s approach relevant to the broader question of administrative treatment of employees who have rendered long periods of service. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had strongly deprecated practices involving the treatment of such employees in a manner that ignored the realities of their prolonged service.
The Patna High Court therefore considered that the authorities could not simply rely upon the label attached to the 2012 regularization order without examining its substantive legal consequences. The fact that the order described or operated upon the petitioner as a fresh appointee did not, by itself, end the inquiry into his other claims.
The Court also attached significance to the petitioner’s contention that several employees junior to him had received notional regularization with effect from April 1, 1988. If employees similarly situated had been granted such benefits, the petitioner’s claim required examination from the standpoint of parity as well.
This did not mean that the Court automatically directed that the petitioner must receive exactly the same benefits. Instead, the Court required the competent authority to determine whether he was legally entitled to parity after examining the circumstances of his case and the treatment accorded to those employees.
The principle of parity was therefore treated as a relevant consideration. An administrative authority cannot disregard an employee’s specific claim of discriminatory treatment without examining whether the persons relied upon are in fact similarly situated and whether the same legal and factual conditions apply.
The Court also addressed the petitioner’s claim concerning pay protection. The petitioner had relied upon Rule 78 of the Bihar Service Code, asserting that his pay ought not to have been reduced merely because his regularization was implemented as a fresh appointment.
The High Court did not finally determine the precise entitlement under Rule 78. Instead, it directed the competent authority to consider the legal effect of the regularization order along with the petitioner’s claim for pay protection. This approach allowed the administrative authority to examine the applicable service rules and the factual circumstances before passing a final decision.
The question of pensionary benefits was similarly left for reconsideration. The petitioner had claimed that his past service should be taken into account under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Given that he had worked continuously since 1980, the Court considered this claim sufficiently significant to require specific examination by the competent authority.
The Court thus directed the authority to consider three interconnected aspects of the petitioner’s case. First, the legal effect of the December 5, 2012 regularization order had to be examined. Second, the petitioner’s claim for parity with similarly situated employees had to be considered. Third, his claims relating to pay protection and counting of past service for pensionary benefits had to be examined under the applicable service rules.
The Court’s direction was therefore broader than simply asking the department to reconsider the petitioner’s pay. It required a comprehensive assessment of how his long service, regularization, comparative treatment and statutory or service-rule-based claims interacted with one another.
Another significant aspect of the order was the requirement of a reasoned and speaking decision. The competent authority was directed to pass a speaking order within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the High Court’s order.
A speaking order is particularly important in a case involving multiple service-related claims because it requires the decision-maker to disclose the reasons for accepting or rejecting the employee’s contentions. The authority cannot merely reproduce the earlier administrative position. It must examine the specific claims and explain the basis of the decision.
The Court’s direction also ensures that the petitioner receives a fresh administrative determination against which the legal position can, if necessary, be examined further. In this way, the High Court did not substitute its own final determination on every disputed service benefit but ensured that the petitioner’s claims were not rejected without a proper consideration of the relevant circumstances.
The outcome is especially significant because the petitioner had spent more than three decades in service by the time his regularization was formally granted. Treating such an employee as though his service effectively commenced only in December 2012 could have consequences extending into salary fixation, retirement and pensionary entitlements.
The Court’s reference to the constitutional ethos and the Supreme Court’s decision in Dharam Singh indicates that the question was not viewed merely as a technical dispute over the date of appointment. The Court considered the broader fairness of treating a person who had served the department since 1980 as a completely new entrant when regularization finally came at the end of his career.
At the same time, the order does not amount to an automatic declaration that every period of daily-wage employment must necessarily be counted for all service benefits. The Court instead directed the competent authority to examine the petitioner’s claims in accordance with the governing rules and the legal effect of the relevant regularization order.
This distinction is important in service jurisprudence. Regularization, pay fixation, seniority and pensionary benefits may be governed by different statutory provisions and administrative rules. A direction to reconsider therefore allows each entitlement to be examined according to the applicable legal framework rather than assuming that regularization by itself automatically confers every past-service benefit.
The Court’s order ultimately seeks to ensure that the petitioner’s long period of service is not ignored through a mechanical classification as a fresh appointee. It also requires the authorities to consider whether employees similarly situated had already received benefits that should inform the petitioner’s case.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court allowed the writ petition to the aforesaid extent and directed the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner’s claim. The authority must examine the December 5, 2012 regularization order, the claim of parity with similarly situated employees, pay protection under Rule 78 of the Bihar Service Code and the claim for counting past service towards pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
The competent authority has been given three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the Court’s order to undertake this exercise and issue a reasoned and speaking order.
The decision therefore stops short of directly awarding all the benefits sought by the petitioner, but it provides him with an important opportunity for a fresh determination of his service claims. More broadly, the order reinforces the principle that administrative treatment of long-serving employees must take account of the substance of their service history and cannot necessarily be justified merely by describing their eventual regularization as a fresh appointment.
The judgment is particularly relevant to cases involving employees who have spent substantial portions of their working lives in temporary, daily-wage or irregular service before being brought into the regular establishment. It demonstrates that when such employees reach the end of their careers, questions concerning pay, parity and pension cannot always be examined solely by reference to the formal date of regular appointment. The circumstances leading to regularization, the treatment of comparable employees, applicable service rules and the consequences of the administrative decision must all be considered before a final determination is made.