Md Aslam vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 01-09-2026

Heard the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages as a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) on muster roll. Subsequently vide Letter No.2263 dated 23.09.1981 issued under the signature of the Superintending Engineer, REO, Work Circle, the case of the petitioner was recommended for his appointment as Junior Engineer in the work charge establishment, REO Works Division, Patna. Approval was accorded by the then Chief Engineer vide Letter No.341 dated 13.01.1982 and the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the work charge establishment in the pay scale of Rs.335-555/- vide office order dated 16.01.1982. The appointment of the petitioner was against a vacant and sanctioned post on account of vacancy caused by Bir Bhadra Prasad, who was working on a sanctioned post of Junior Engineer and later left the job in the department. The petitioner appeared in the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination held on 06.12.1981 and passed the same. Finally the petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.08.2011. Although, after his superannuation he submitted different representations before the authorities from time to time for payment of his post retiral dues, however the same was not paid. Left with no other option, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.10871 of 2011, wherein apart from other prayers, a prayer was made to direct the respondents to pay him the post retirement benefits, which was due to him. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2019 with a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the Hon’ble Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Mobina Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 1015 as well as the Resolution contained in Memo No.5547 dated 03.07.2019 issued by the Finance Department. Pursuant thereto, vide Memo No.2162 dated 09.04.2021 issued under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, the petitioner was extended the post retirement benefits under the old pension scheme, but it was decided to count the pension and gratuity of the petitioner in the light of Resolution No.10710 dated 17.10.2013 issued by the Finance Department and due to that the pension of the petitioner has been fixed and paid to him on the basis of 10 years, in place of 29 years spent by him under the work charge establishment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the order dated 09.04.2021, the authorities did not consider, that Resolution No.10710 dated 17.10.2013 issued by the Finance Department is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, which is clear from the fact that the aforesaid Resolution has been issued w.e.f. the date of issuance of the same and much after superannuation of the petitioner. He submits that the department took work from the petitioner as a regular employee, therefore, the petitioner is as good as a regular employee and in view thereof, it was incumbent upon the respondents to fix and pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner after counting his entire service spent under the work charge establishment. He further submits that vide Memo No.6250 dated 13.09.1977 issued under the signature of the Chief Engineer, REO, three Junior Engineers, who were working as daily wage employees on work charged basis in the pay scale of Rs.335-555/- were appointed. The said three Junior Engineers were later on regularized by the State Government. Apart from the aforesaid three Junior Engineers, large number of Junior Engineers whose services were regularized in the permanent establishment of the department, but the petitioner has been left out. He submits that one Shamsul Hoda, who was appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) on work charge basis, was later on regularized and was absorbed in the permanent establishment. He submits that the said Shamsul Hoda has been granted all the benefits, whereas the petitioner has been left out. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities in counting the service period of the petitioner, in light of Resolution No.10710 dated 17.10.2013, in place of counting his entire service period spent under the work charge establishment for the purpose of fixation and payment of post retiral benefits, which has been issued much after the superannuation of the petitioner, is arbitrary and mala fide. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled for payment of all the benefits which was attached to the post for a regular engineer and the denial of the same is not in consonance with the decision of the State Government.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the present writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that for the same relief, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition and pursuant to the order dated 16.09.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10871 of 2011, a decision has been taken by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department and a reasoned order has been passed, which is contained in Memo No.2162 dated 09.04.2021. If the petitioner was aggrieved with the said letter, it was incumbent upon him to assail the said letter, however without challenging the contents of the letter, the petitioner has again filed the present writ petition, asking for the benefits, which have been refused by the said letter.

Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner superannuated from service in the year 2011. He filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.10871 of 2011 for certain reliefs related to his service. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2019 passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as per its admissibility in light of the Resolution dated 03.07.2019 bearing Memo No.5547, without any undue delay. It appears from the records that in terms of the directions given by this Hon’ble Court, the claim of the petitioner was considered by the Engineer-in-chief, Rural Works Department and vide his order contained in Memo No.2162 dated 09.04.2021, the claim of the petitioner was redressed, however it was decided to count the pension and gratuity of the petitioner in light of Resolution No.10710 dated 17.10.2013 and due to that the pension of the petitioner has been fixed and paid on the basis of 10 years of service. An order has been passed against the petitioner, whereby the relief claimed for in the present writ petition has been denied to him, however the petitioner without assailing the same has filed the present writ petition. Further, the petitioner superannuated in 2011 and thereafter he filed a writ petition in 2011. The same was disposed of in 2019. A reasoned order, denying the service benefits to him was passed on 09.04.2021 and the petitioner accepted the same, without assailing the same before any forum. After almost five years of rejection of his claim, he woke up from his slumber and filed the present writ petition, that too without assailing the order dated 09.04.2021. In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner for the relief, which has been prayed for by him, without assailing the order contained in Memo No.2162 dated 09.04.2021 is not maintainable and cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.