Daily-Wage Service Claims for Pay Protection and Pension Require Reasoned Reconsideration

The petitioner was engaged as a daily-wage typist on 16 June 1980 and claimed continuous service against a sanctioned post.

After earlier proceedings, the High Court directed the authorities to consider his regularization claim; in 2012, the authorities appointed him as a Lower Division Clerk, treating the appointment as fresh and effective from that date.

His basic pay was reduced, and his claims for retrospective regularization and pay protection were rejected.

He relied, among other things, on alleged notional benefits granted to other employees.

The petitioner superannuated in November 2019.

Whether the petitioner’s continuous daily-wage service from 1980 could be disregarded for pay protection and pensionary benefits, particularly in light of his claim that similarly situated junior employees received notional benefits.

Whether the rejection of his claims could stand without separately examining the legal effect of the 2012 appointment order, his parity claim, pay protection under Rule 78 of the Bihar Service Code, and past-service reckoning under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

Rule 78 of the Bihar Service Code was relevant to the petitioner’s claim for pay protection; Rules 58, 59 and 61 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 were cited concerning qualifying service and pension eligibility.

The State relied on Clause 2(5) of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department’s 16 March 2006 policy, which it said excluded daily-wage service from service under the State, and on State of Bihar v. Bhagwan Singh (2014) 4 PLJR 229 and State of Bihar v. S.A. Hassan (2002) 3 SCC 566 concerning the pensionability of prior daily-wage service.

The petitioner relied on The Registrar General, Patna High Court v. Ram Vyas Dubey, LPA No. 198 of 2016, and authorities concerning consideration of continuous temporary service under Rules 58 and 59.

The Court also referred to Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, LPA No. 1690 of 2013, and to Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, and Bhikni Devi v. Union of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 8354–8356 of 2026.

The Court did not finally determine the scope or application of these rules and precedents to the petitioner; it directed their consideration by the competent authority.

The Court treated the petitioner’s long service and his assertion that the same controlling authority granted notional benefits to other employees as matters requiring examination, but did not find that they established an automatic entitlement to parity.

It held that the petitioner’s prior service, pay protection and pension claim required separate assessment under the applicable rules and precedents, including consideration of the terms and legal effect of the 2012 appointment order.

Accordingly, rather than deciding whether daily-wage service must be counted or whether Rule 78 entitled the petitioner to pay protection, the Court remitted those questions for a reasoned decision.

The competent authority was directed to examine separately the legal effect of the 5 December 2012 order, the petitioner’s parity claim, pay protection under Rule 78, and pensionary reckoning of past service under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, and to pass a reasoned, speaking order within three months of receipt or production of the judgment.

The Court did not itself grant retrospective regularization, pay protection, or pensionary credit.