Patna HC Gives Bihar 60 Days To Count Ayurvedic College Employee’s 2003–Reinstatement Gap As Service, Without Back Wages

In brief

The question

1. Whether, in light of Memo No. 818 dated 29 May 2025 and the parties’ positions, the Court should direct the Secretary, Health Department, to implement that memo.

The court held

The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2, the Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, to implement Memo No. 818 dated 29 May 2025 within 60 days from receipt or production of a copy of the judgment.

It also directed

In the event of non-compliance, respondent no. 2 would be liable to face appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the 2018 order fixing his pay at the basic scale of ₹18,000 in Level 1, without pay protection, and sought consequential pay revision and three financial progressions under the MACP Scheme.

p. 2

During the writ proceedings, the State filed a counter affidavit annexing Memo No. 818 dated 29 May 2025, which modified the 2018 order and the related corrigendum.

p. 3

The petitioner stated that his grievance stood redressed by the modification and sought only a direction to implement that memo; the State raised no objection.

pp. 3–4

The memo provided, in substance, for treating the period from the petitioner’s removal from service on 29 August 2003 until his readjustment in service as continuous for pay fixation and service benefits, but not for payment of back wages.

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether, in light of Memo No. 818 dated 29 May 2025 and the parties’ positions, the Court should direct the Secretary, Health Department, to implement that memo.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s original challenges to pay fixation and denial of financial progressions required separate adjudication after the State’s modification of the earlier order.

pp. 2–4

03Law Applied

The Court applied the operative terms of Memo No. 818 dated 29 May 2025, which referred to the High Court’s consolidated judgment dated 24 November 2015 in several writ petitions and departmental financial advice.

pp. 4–5

Under the memo, the relevant period was to count as continuous service for pay fixation and service benefits, while back wages for that period were not payable; the 2018 departmental order and its corrigendum stood modified to that extent.

pp. 4–5

The judgment does not identify or apply any statute or independently state a general legal doctrine.

pp. 4–5

04Reasoning

The Court treated the 2025 memo as having changed the circumstances during the pendency of the writ petition and noted that the petitioner no longer pressed his original claims, seeking only implementation of the memo.

pp. 3–5

As the State had no objection, the Court disposed of the petition by directing implementation of the memo rather than separately determining the original pay-protection and MACP claims.

pp. 3–5