Motipur Workers Get No Regular Pay Scale Yet as Patna HC Finds 2016 Hiring Rules Unlawful, Protects Current Work and Pay Pending Bihar’s Decision

The petitioners, who had been working at Nagar Panchayat/Nagar Parishad Motipur in various roles, sought pay scales and arrears from 1 June 2019, relying on the State’s Resolution No. 2503 dated 3 May 2018 and appointment letters issued in May 2019.

The State disputed the appointments, asserting that the local body had acted contrary to a departmental ban and without following the required selection and reservation procedures.

The Court examined the validity of the Motipur Employment/Appointment Rules, 2016, on which the petitioners’ appointments were based.

Sections 37 and 38 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 govern municipal establishment, posts, recruitment and appointing authorities; section 37(10) permits the Empowered Standing Committee to engage municipal officers and employees on contract against specified posts.

Section 40A empowers the State Government to frame service rules for municipal employees, including rules on recruitment and service conditions.

Section 488(4)(b) preserves specified pre-existing actions and rules unless superseded or modified under the Act.

The Court held that, in light of section 40A, the municipality itself could not frame service rules governing recruitment and service conditions.

The Court treated the 2016 Motipur Rules as the foundation of the petitioners’ claimed appointments and pay entitlement.

Because section 40A assigns the framing of municipal service rules to the State Government, the Court found that Motipur lacked authority to frame those Rules; it also noted that the relevant statutory provisions had not been taken into account when the Rules were made.

It therefore held that action taken under the Rules, including the appointments relied upon by the petitioners, could not establish entitlement to the requested pay scales and arrears.

However, given the petitioners’ continued service, the Court directed the State to consider their position after hearing them and the Executive Officer.

It directed the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, to decide the petitioners’ case in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners and the Executive Officer, within 90 days from their appearance.

Pending that decision, the petitioners were not to be disturbed, were permitted to continue working, and were entitled to continue receiving their existing payments; their status quo was to remain until a reasoned order was passed.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.