Authorities must decide contractual employees’ honorarium claims until termination through reasoned parity-based consideration.

The petitioner, a Stenographer in the District Rural Development Agency, Gaya, challenged Memo No. 744 dated 6 March 2024, by which his contractual service was terminated on the ground that the Agency had ceased to exist, despite his having worked for more than 24 years and his name allegedly having been forwarded for absorption.

He initially sought quashing of the termination order, reinstatement, consideration of absorption, payment of arrears, and consequential reliefs.

During the hearing, the petitioner stated that he had crossed the age of superannuation and confined his claim to payment of honorarium up to the date of termination.

He relied on the relief granted to similarly situated employees in CWJC No. 13854 of 2024, whose claims had been considered by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya.

The State relied on Memo No. 661 dated 17 February 2025, stating that the similarly situated employees had been granted relief only for payment of honorarium up to the date of termination.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim payment of honorarium up to the date of termination of his contractual service, in light of the relief granted to similarly situated employees.

Whether the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya, should be directed to consider the petitioner’s claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court applied the principle that similarly situated employees should receive equal consideration and that an administrative authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order when determining an individual claim.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that, where the factual identity of the petitioner with previously granted relief is to be verified by the competent authority, the appropriate course is to permit a fresh representation and direct a time-bound decision rather than grant the substantive monetary relief directly.

Since the petitioner had confined his claim to honorarium up to the date of termination, and the State acknowledged that similarly situated employees had received consideration for the same period under Memo No. 661 dated 17 February 2025, the Court considered it appropriate to provide the petitioner an opportunity to pursue an identical claim.

The Court did not itself determine entitlement; instead, it directed the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya, to examine whether the petitioner’s case was identical to that of the other employees and to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

If found entitled, the honorarium was required to be paid within the prescribed period.

The authority was directed to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days of receipt, following the approach adopted in Memo No. 661 dated 17 February 2025 if the petitioner’s case was identical.

If the petitioner was found entitled, the honorarium was to be paid within a further period of 30 days.

No direct order of reinstatement, absorption, or unconditional payment was granted.