Government must settle claims of similarly situated employees as per State Litigation Policy without compelling litigation.

The two petitioners, Ganga Vishnu Paswan and Mahendra Paswan, claimed to have worked in a "work charge establishment" under the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Bihar, for over 28 years

They approached the High Court seeking a direction for the regularization of their services and consequential benefits, asserting that sanctioned and vacant posts were available in the Hilsa Division and that similarly situated persons had been granted such benefits

The petitioners contended their case was identical to the precedent set in Ambika Paswan & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 3158 of 2020)

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the regularization of their services in a regular establishment based on their long-term service in a work charge establishment and the availability of vacant posts

2. Whether the State is obligated to settle the claim of the petitioners administratively if the matter is covered by existing judicial precedents under the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011

Clause 4.C(1) of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, which mandates that Government Departments should aim to consider and settle the claims of employees if they are found to be covered by existing Court decisions to avoid unnecessary litigation

Judicial precedent of Ambika Paswan & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 3158 of 2020) regarding service regularization

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the regularization claim directly but evaluated the procedural obligation of the State as an "efficient litigant."

Relying on Clause 4.C(1) of the 2011 Litigation Policy, the Court observed that service matters covered by prior judgments should be disposed of at the departmental level.

Since the petitioners asserted that their circumstances were squarely covered by the Ambika Paswan case, the Court reasoned that the Respondent No. 4 (Engineer-in-Chief, PHED) was the competent authority to verify this equivalence and pass a reasoned order accordingly.

The Court directed Respondent No. 4 to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receipt; if the petitioners' case is found to be squarely covered by the Ambika Paswan precedent, the Respondent must provide the benefits in light of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.