Unreasoned rejection of a past-service counting claim is invalid; the authority must reconsider it by a speaking order.

The petitioner claimed that his service should be counted from 30 May 1979, the date of his initial engagement on daily wages in the erstwhile Corporation, for the purpose of receiving consequential service benefits, including the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (M.A.C.P.) benefit.

The Senior Treasury Officer, Secretariat Treasury, Patna rejected the claim by Letter No. 181 dated 9 February 2024.

The petitioner amended the writ petition to challenge that order through Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2024, which the Court allowed with the State’s consent.

Relying on the decision in Samiran Bakshi v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 10192 of 2024, decided on 11 July 2024, the petitioner asserted that his case was covered by an identical ruling.

The State requested that the petitioner pursue the remedy contemplated under the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, while the Accountant General submitted that the claim required consideration by the competent State authority.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for counting service from 30 May 1979 and for consequential benefits, including the 3rd M.A.C.P. benefit, was required to be reconsidered by the competent authority in light of Clause 4C of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 and the decision in Samiran Bakshi.

Whether Letter No. 181 dated 9 February 2024, rejecting the petitioner’s claim without assigning reasons, could be sustained.

The Court applied Clause 4C of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, which requires the State authorities to consider and appropriately deal with claims in light of applicable judicial decisions and to avoid unnecessary litigation.

It further applied the administrative-law requirement that an order affecting a claimant’s legal or service benefits must be reasoned and speaking; an unreasoned rejection order cannot ordinarily be sustained.

The Court also relied upon the principle stated in Samiran Bakshi v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 10192 of 2024, decided on 11 July 2024, which the petitioner claimed covered the same issue.

The Court considered that the petitioner’s claim raised an issue allegedly covered by the decision in Samiran Bakshi and therefore required examination by the competent State authority under Clause 4C of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.

Since the matter had remained pending since 2023, the Court found that retaining the writ petition would serve no useful purpose.

However, the earlier rejection contained in Letter No. 181 dated 9 February 2024 was unsupported by reasons.

Applying the requirement of a reasoned and speaking administrative order, the Court set aside that communication and directed a fresh consideration rather than adjudicating the substantive service claim itself.

It set aside Letter No. 181 dated 9 February 2024 because it had been issued without assigning reasons.

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation, along with a copy of the judgment, to the competent authority within 30 days.

The authority was directed to consider the claim in light of Clause 4C of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days of receiving the representation.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, without a final determination of the petitioner’s entitlement to counting of service from 30 May 1979 or to consequential benefits.