Back
Treating Long-Serving Daily Wage Worker as Fresh Appointee Violates : Patna HC
In a significant ruling that underscores the constitutional obligations of state employers, the has held that treating a long-serving daily-wage employee as a "fresh appointee" after decades of requires urgent reconsideration. The of Justice Kumar Manish directed the to re-examine the case of Bipin Kumar Verma , a daily-wage worker who served for over 42 years but was regularized only in 2012—and that too at a reduced salary.
A 42-Year Odyssey for Justice
Bipin Kumar Verma was initially engaged as a daily-wage typist on , against a sanctioned under the . Despite uninterrupted service, his was repeatedly delayed while junior colleagues were granted as early as and 1988. After multiple rounds of litigation—including writ petitions in and —the authorities finally regularized his services on . However, instead of recognizing his past service, the order treated his appointment as "fresh," slashing his basic pay from ₹9,840 to ₹7,730.
Verma joined under protest and sought parity with similarly situated employees who had been granted retrospective from , for pensionary and . His claims were rejected by the Chief Engineer, who argued that the 2006 government circular barred counting , and that under applied only to appointed government servants.
Discrimination Alleged: Juniors Given Benefits, Petitioner Left Behind
The petitioner's counsel,
, highlighted glaring discrimination: employees like Mahesh Rai were regularized in
, and a group of seven others—including Dilip Kumar Rai and Ram Chandra Mahto—were granted
from 1988 by the same Chief Engineer.
"Despite dedicating his entire life to the department, the petitioner was made to superannuate in
without
,"
Singh argued, relying on the
decision in
and the ruling in
, which held that of over 15 years could be considered pensionable under .
vs. Bureaucratic Rigidity
The respondents, represented by , defended the impugned orders, citing that explicitly states shall not be recognized for any purpose. They relied on the decision in State of Bihar v. Bhagwan Singh (2014) and the 's ruling in State of Bihar v. S.A. Hassan (2002), which held that does not qualify for pension under .
However, the court found that the respondents' approach was
"contrary to the
."
Quoting the recent
judgment in
Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.
(), Justice Manish observed:
"The and ."
The court further noted:
"This Court cannot turn itself blind, to the glaring discrimination highlighted by the petitioner in Paragraph 36 of the
."
Court Orders Reconsideration: A Ray of Hope
Allowing the , the High Court directed the competent authority to reconsider Verma's claim on four specific counts: the legal effect of the order, parity with employees granted , under , and reckoning of past service for under the .
The court emphasized that a reasoned and
must be passed within three months, taking into account the precedents cited by both sides.
"Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a
,"
the judgment concluded, echoing the
's words in
Dharam Singh
.
This ruling reaffirms that state governments cannot balance budgets on the backs of long-serving daily-wage employees and must ensure equal treatment under .
