A writ petition for denied service benefits is not maintainable without assailing the rejection order.

The petitioner was initially engaged as a daily-wage Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and was subsequently appointed in the work-charge establishment as a Junior Engineer in 1982 against a vacant sanctioned post.

He superannuated on 30 August 2011 but claimed that his entire period of service under the work-charge establishment—approximately 29 years—ought to be counted for fixation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral benefits.

In an earlier writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 10871 of 2011, the High Court directed the authorities to consider his claim in light of the Full Bench decision in Mobina Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Finance Department Memo No. 5547 dated 3 July 2019.

Pursuant thereto, the Engineer-in-Chief passed Memo No. 2162 dated 9 April 2021, granting pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme but calculating pension and gratuity on the basis of 10 years of qualifying service under Finance Department Resolution No. 10710 dated 17 October 2013, rather than the petitioner’s entire work-charge service.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition nearly five years later without challenging Memo No. 2162 dated 9 April 2021.

Whether the writ petition seeking counting of the petitioner’s entire work-charge service for pensionary benefits was maintainable without challenging the adverse order contained in Memo No. 2162 dated 9 April 2021.

Whether the petitioner could seek reconsideration of the same retiral-benefit claim after the earlier writ proceedings had culminated in a reasoned decision by the competent authority, which remained unchallenged for nearly five years.

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition seeking substantive relief cannot ordinarily be maintained without assailing the specific administrative order by which that relief has been denied.

It further applied the principles of finality of proceedings, delay and laches, and judicial discipline in relation to an earlier writ petition and the reasoned order passed pursuant to the Court’s directions.

The earlier proceedings were governed by the High Court’s direction to consider the petitioner’s claim in light of Mobina Khatoon v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2019 (1) PLJR 1015, and Finance Department Memo No. 5547 dated 3 July 2019; the administrative authority thereafter relied on Finance Department Resolution No. 10710 dated 17 October 2013 while determining the qualifying service.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim had already been considered pursuant to the order in the earlier writ petition and had resulted in a reasoned administrative decision contained in Memo No. 2162 dated 9 April 2021.

Since that memo expressly denied the petitioner’s claim for counting the entire work-charge service and limited the calculation of pension and gratuity to 10 years of service, the petitioner was required to challenge that order directly before seeking the same relief through a fresh writ petition.

Instead, he filed the present proceeding without impugning the operative order and after an unexplained delay of almost five years.

The Court therefore held that the petition was procedurally defective and could not be granted in that form, irrespective of the petitioner’s substantive submissions concerning the applicability of Resolution No. 10710 or alleged parity with other Junior Engineers.

The unexplained delay following that order further disentitled him to relief in the present proceedings.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.