Md Aslam vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13325 of 2026
======================================================
Md Aslam S/o Md. Hasan, resident of Village and P.O.- Sulindabad, P.S. and
Dist. - Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department,
Governtment of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (I), Rural Works Department, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Rai, S.C.13
Mr. Hitesh Suman, A.C. to S.C.13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
“For issuance of writ in the
nature of writ of mandamus directing the
respondent authorities to count the entire
period of the petitioner spent under the work
charge establishment for the purpose of
fixation of his pensionary benefits such as
pension, gratuity and leave encashment and
accordingly refix and pay the pensionary
benefits and other benefits to the petitioner.
And/or pass such other order/orders as this
Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages as a Junior
Patna High Court CWJC No.13325 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
2/7
Engineer (Mechanical) on muster roll. Subsequently vide Letter
No.2263 dated 23.09.1981 issued under the signature of the
Superintending Engineer, REO, Work Circle, the case of the
petitioner was recommended for his appointment as Junior
Engineer in the work charge establishment, REO Works
Division, Patna. Approval was accorded by the then Chief
Engineer vide Letter No.341 dated 13.01.1982 and the petitioner
was appointed as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the work
charge establishment in the pay scale of Rs.335-555/- vide
office order dated 16.01.1982. The appointment of the petitioner
was against a vacant and sanctioned post on account of vacancy
caused by Bir Bhadra Prasad, who was working on a sanctioned
post of Junior Engineer and later left the job in the department.
The petitioner appeared in the Hindi Noting and Drafting
examination held on 06.12.1981 and passed the same. Finally
the petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.08.2011.
Although, after his superannuation he submitted different
representations before the authorities from time to time for
payment of his post retiral dues, however the same was not paid.
Left with no other option, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C.
No.10871 of 2011, wherein apart from other prayers, a prayer
was made to direct the respondents to pay him the post
Patna High Court CWJC No.13325 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
3/7
retirement benefits, which was due to him. The writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2019 with a direction to the
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the
Hon’ble Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of
Mobina Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2019
(1) PLJR 1015 as well as the Resolution contained in Memo
No.5547 dated 03.07.2019 issued by the Finance Department.
Pursuant thereto, vide Memo No.2162 dated 09.04.2021 issued
under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, the petitioner was
extended the post retirement benefits under the old pension
scheme, but it was decided to count the pension and gratuity of
the petitioner in the light of Resolution No.10710 dated
17.10.2013 issued by the Finance Department and due to that
the pension of the petitioner has been fixed and paid to him on
the basis of 10 years, in place of 29 years spent by him under
the work charge establishment. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that before passing the order dated
09.04.2021, the authorities did not consider, that Resolution
No.10710 dated 17.10.2013 issued by the Finance Department
is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, which is clear from
the fact that the aforesaid Resolution has been issued w.e.f. the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13325 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
4/7
date of issuance of the same and much after superannuation of
the petitioner. He submits that the department took work from
the petitioner as a regular employee, therefore, the petitioner is
as good as a regular employee and in view thereof, it was
incumbent upon the respondents to fix and pay the pensionary
benefits to the petitioner after counting his entire service spent
under the work charge establishment. He further submits that
vide Memo No.6250 dated 13.09.1977 issued under the
signature of the Chief Engineer, REO, three Junior Engineers,
who were working as daily wage employees on work charged
basis in the pay scale of Rs.335-555/- were appointed. The said
three Junior Engineers were later on regularized by the State
Government. Apart from the aforesaid three Junior Engineers,
large number of Junior Engineers whose services were
regularized in the permanent establishment of the department,
but the petitioner has been left out. He submits that one Shamsul
Hoda, who was appointed to the post of Junior Engineer
(Mechanical) on work charge basis, was later on regularized and
was absorbed in the permanent establishment. He submits that
the said Shamsul Hoda has been granted all the benefits,
whereas the petitioner has been left out. It is further submitted
that the action of the respondent authorities in counting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13325 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
5/7
service period of the petitioner, in light of Resolution No.10710
dated 17.10.2013, in place of counting his entire service period
spent under the work charge establishment for the purpose of
fixation and payment of post retiral benefits, which has been
issued much after the superannuation of the petitioner, is
arbitrary and mala fide. The learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner is entitled for payment of all
the benefits which was attached to the post for a regular
engineer and the denial of the same is not in consonance with
the decision of the State Government.
4. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State submits that the present writ petition itself is
not maintainable in view of the fact that for the same relief, the
petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition and pursuant to the
order dated 16.09.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10871 of 2011, a
decision has been taken by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works
Department and a reasoned order has been passed, which is
contained in Memo No.2162 dated 09.04.2021. If the petitioner
was aggrieved with the said letter, it was incumbent upon him to
assail the said letter, however without challenging the contents
of the letter, the petitioner has again filed the present writ
petition, asking for the benefits, which have been refused by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13325 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
6/7
said letter.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the petitioner
superannuated from service in the year 2011. He filed a writ
petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.10871 of 2011 for certain reliefs
related to his service. The writ petition filed by the petitioner
was disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2019 passed by a
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby the
authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner
as per its admissibility in light of the Resolution dated
03.07.2019 bearing Memo No.5547, without any undue delay. It
appears from the records that in terms of the directions given by
this Hon’ble Court, the claim of the petitioner was considered
by the Engineer-in-chief, Rural Works Department and vide his
order contained in Memo No.2162 dated 09.04.2021, the claim
of the petitioner was redressed, however it was decided to count
the pension and gratuity of the petitioner in light of Resolution
No.10710 dated 17.10.2013 and due to that the pension of the
petitioner has been fixed and paid on the basis of 10 years of
service. An order has been passed against the petitioner,
whereby the relief claimed for in the present writ petition has
been denied to him, however the petitioner without assailing the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13325 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
7/7
same has filed the present writ petition. Further, the petitioner
superannuated in 2011 and thereafter he filed a writ petition in
2011. The same was disposed of in 2019. A reasoned order,
denying the service benefits to him was passed on 09.04.2021
and the petitioner accepted the same, without assailing the same
before any forum. After almost five years of rejection of his
claim, he woke up from his slumber and filed the present writ
petition, that too without assailing the order dated 09.04.2021.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner for the relief, which has been prayed for by him,
without assailing the order contained in Memo No.2162 dated
09.04.2021 is not maintainable and cannot be granted.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date NA