Mandatory Consideration of Service Regularization Claims for Similarly Situated Employees Under Bihar State Litigation Policy 2011

The petitioner, formerly an electrician with the Bihar State Housing Board (BSHB), filed a writ petition seeking regularization of his services and subsequent consequential benefits.

The petitioner claimed parity with a similarly situated employee, Vijay Kumar Mehta (CWJC No. 17697 of 2014), who was granted liberty by the Court to file a representation for consideration.

The respondents (State and BSHB) opposed the petition on the grounds of delay and laches, noting that the petitioner superannuated in 2008, the cause of action originated in 1985, and the petition was filed only in 2025.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the regularization of his services despite a significant delay in filing the writ petition.

2. Whether the "similar cases" clause of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, necessitates the department to consider the petitioner's representation in light of prior judicial orders.

The court primarily applied Clause 4C of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, which mandates that government departments should aim to settle claims of employees if the claim is covered by a prior court decision, thereby acting as efficient litigants and reducing unnecessary litigation.

The court also considered the principle of parity and the procedural precedent set in Vijay Kumar Mehta v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 17697 of 2014), which allowed for the filing of a reasoned representation to the authorities.

The court balanced the respondents' objection regarding the seventeen-year delay in filing (2008 to 2025) against the state’s own litigation policy.

The Court refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the regularization claim itself but focused on the procedural mandate of Clause 4C of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.

By invoking this policy, the court reasoned that the Executive is duty-bound to consider if the petitioner’s case is indeed "squarely covered" by previous judgments, such as the one involving Vijay Kumar Mehta, regardless of the delay, to fulfill its role as an "efficient litigant".

Consequently, the court found it appropriate to delegate the determination of facts and legal parity to the Principal Secretary.

The Court directed the Principal Secretary to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within four weeks of receiving the representation.