Patna High Court
Amit Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8991 of 2022
======================================================
1. Amit Kumar Son of Parmeshwar Prasad, resident of Nagar Panchayat
Bhawan Road, Banmankhi, P.O. and P.S. Banmankhi, District Purnea, PIN
854202.
2. Shyam Nath Mehta, son of Shiv Nath Prasad Mehta, resident of New
Shashtri Nagar, P.O. and P.S.- Madhubani, District Purnea, PIN 854301.
3. Raj Kumar Goswami, Son of Shankar Goswami, resident of Naka Chowk
Purnea City, P.O.- Purnea City, P.S.- Sadar, District Purnea, PIN 854302.
4. Om Prakash Kumar, son of Arjun Roy, resident of Kali Prasad Tola
Madhubani, P.O. - Purnea, P.S.- K.Hat, District Purnea, PIN 854301.
5. Kumar Rahul, son of Pradeep Kumar Sinha, resident of Madhubani Bazar,
Near Sinha Public School, P.O. and P.S. Madhubani, District Purnea, PIN
854301.
6. Rahul Kumar, Son of Birendra Prasad Mehta, resident of at and P.O.
Gadhiya Balua, Ward No. 6, P.S. K. Nagar, District Purnea, PIN 854304.
7. Rajeev Kumar, Son of Devendra Narayan Mallick, resident of Ward No. 8,
Dharhara, Near Power Sub Station Banmankhi, P.O. and P.S. Banmankhi,
District Purnea, PIN 854202.
8. Subhash Kumar, Son of Surya Narayan Sah, resident of Village Hanuman
Nagar, P.O. Kajha, P.S. K. Nagar, District Purnea, PIN 854304.
9. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Son of Anil Kumar Sinha, resident of Ram Nagar
Bank Colony, P.O.- Polytechnic, P.S. K. Hat, District Purnea, PIN 854301.
10. Sumit Kumar, Son of Binda Singh, resident of At, P.O. and P.S.-
Bhawanipur, District Purnea, PIN 854204.
11. Anil Kumar Choudhary, Son of Sitaram Choudhary, resident of Nishiganj,
Line Bazar, P.O.- Purnea, P.S. K. Hat, District- Purnea- 854301.
12. Chandan Kumar, Son of Dinesh Das, resident of Shivnagar Newalal Chowk,
P.O.- Lalganj, P.S. Maraga, District Purnea, Pin- 854301.
13. Priti Deb, daughter of Rabindra Kumar Deb, resident of Near Durga Mandir,
Purnea Court Station, P.O. Purnea, P.S.- K. Hat, District Purnea Pin 854301.
14. Binita Kumari, daughter of Umesh Kumar Paswan, resident of Barihat, Near
Durga Mandir, P.O. Purnea, P.S. K, Hat, District Purnea, PIN 854301.
15. Ankush Kumar, Son of Lakhan Lal Yadav, resident of Village Baghmara,
P.O. - Bela Rikabganj, P.S.- K. Nagar, District Purnea, Pin 854301.
16. Ravi Shekhar, Son of Vikram Prasad, resident of Anandpuri, P.O. Purnea,
P.S. Shayak Khajanchi, District Purnea.
17. Shiv Kumar Das, Son of Madhav Narayan Das, resident of Vikash Nagar
Maranga East, PO Polytechnic, P.S. K.Hat, District Purnea, PIN 854301.
18. Jitendra Kumar, Son of Sant Lal Rajak, resident of Sant Niwas, Ramnagar,
PO Polytechnic, P.S. K. Hat, District Purnea, PIN 854303.
19. Shiv Shankar Kumar Mehta, son of Ashok Kumar Mehta, resident of At
Balua (Amapur), P.O. - Garhiya Balua, PS.- K. Nagar, District Purnea, PIN
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
2/62
854304.
20. Prakash Kumar Chouhan, Son of Hari Prasad Chouhan, resident of Chouhan
Tola, Khushkibagh, P.O. Khushkibagh, P.S.- Sadar, District Purnea, PIN
854305.
21. Saurabh Suman, Son of Hira Lal Mandal, resident of Subhash Nagar, P.O.
and P.S. - Kasba, District Purnea, PIN 854330.
22. Md. Salim Zafar, Son of Md. Mohiuddin Qasmi, resident of Qasmi Manzil,
Rahat Colony, Near Badi Masjid, Sipahi Tola, P.O. Purnea, P.S. Madhubani
Top, District Purnea, PIN 854301.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Secretary to Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Administration Reforms Mission Society,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Director, Bihar Administration Reforms Mission Society,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The OSD, Bihar Administration Reforms Mission Society, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
6. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
7. Executive Director, State Health Society, Patna, Bihar.
8. The District Magistrate, Purnea, Bihar.
9. DDC, Purnea, Bihar.
10. Additional Deputy Collector (Establishment), Purnea, Bihar.
11. Civil Surgeon-Cum-Member Secretary District Health Society, Purnea,
Bihar,
12. District Program Manager, District Health Society, Purnea, Bihar.
13. M/S Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. A Company registered under the
Companes Act having its office at 31/A, 1st Floor, Banke Bihari Sadan,
Sahdeo Mahto Srikrishnapuri, P.S. Srikrishnapur, Patna through its
Managing Director.
14. Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (BELTRON), J442-
64Q, Baldev Bhawan Rd, P.S.Shastri Nagar, Beltron, Patna Bihar 800023
through its Managing Director.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma ( AAG 3 )
Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG 3
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
3/62
For the Health Society : Mr. K.K. Sinha, Advocate
For the BELTRON : Mr.Grijeh Kumar, Advocate
For the Private Respondent No. 13 : Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Rajiv Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2025
1. The petitioners have invoked Constitutional Writ
Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-
"i. For issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in
the nature of mandamus for directing the
respondents to place the petitioners on the
vacant post of Executive Assistant in the
District of Purnea.
ii. For issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in
the nature of mandamus for directing the
respondents to pay the salaries of the
petitioners from the period of August, 2021
uptill now with all consequential benefits.
iii. For issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in
the nature of certiorari for setting aside letter
contained in memo no. 956 dated 18.08.2021
by which the service of the petitioner has been
returned to the Establishment, District Purnea
due to paucity of fund.
iv. For issuance of appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
4/62
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in
the nature of certiorari for setting aside letter
contained in Memo No. 1416 dated 23.12.2021
issued under the signature of District
Magistrate, Purnea by which the list of the
petitioners has been submitted to the
BELTRON for taking appropriate action.
v. For a declaration that the office
order contained in Memo No. 1347 dated
18.08.2021
issued by the Additional Mission
Director, Bihar Prashashanik Sudhar Mission
is not applicable to the petitioners.
vi. To hold and declare that the
services of the petitioners are permanent in
nature by virtue of notification contained in
Memo No. 436 dated 26.02.2019 issued under
the signature of Additional Mission Director,
Bihar Prashashanik Sudhar Mission, Patna by
which the services of the petitioners and others
similarly situated persons have been enhanced
till the sixty years of age or till lapse of
scheme.
vii. To hold and declare that the
petitioners have not been appointed for
scheme basis rather the appointment of the
petitioners are regular in nature.
viii. For any other relief/s to which
the petitioners may be found entitled to by this
Hon’ble Court.”
2. On 6th of June, 2013, Bihar Prashashanik
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
5/62
Sudhar Mission, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred as
“BPSM” for short), issued a notification for preparation of a
panel for the appointment of Executive Assistants on
contract basis. Clause-1 of the said notification provided the
minimum eligibility criteria for the candidates, which was
matriculation and basic knowledge of computer operation
system (MS Word, MS Excel, MS Power Point, etc.). The
notification also stated that the said contractual appointment
would initially be for one year. However, there was
stipulation for extension of the period of appointment for
such candidates. The procedure of selection was stated in
Clause-4 of the said Notification, which stipulated that on
the basis of applications filed in the district level, a
committee under the Chairmanship of the District
Magistrate would prepare a panel keeping in mind the
rules/roster relating to reservation and the candidates would
be appointed on the basis of seniority against vacant posts.
3. Accordingly, a panel was prepared by the
Committee under the Chairmanship of the District
Magistrate for the District of Purnea, vide Memo No. 2487,
dated 18th of October, 2013. Thereafter, vide a Memo No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
6/62
8592, dated 23rd of October, 2013 read with Memo No.
9842, dated 10th of December, 2013, issued by the Secretary,
Health-cum- Executive Director, State Health Committee,
Bihar, Patna, the District Magistrate vide an order, dated 20th
of November, 2013 directed that the Executive Assistant
from the panel would be posted at State Hospitals in the
District of Purnea on the basis of counselling of the
empaneled candidates. Counselling was held on 14 th of
December, 2013, where 34 candidates from the panel
appeared and they were appointed on contractual basis to
work under the District Health Committee, Purnea in
different hospitals as an Executive Assistants.
4. Though it is not very relevant for the purpose of
adjudication of the dispute in the instant writ petition, it is
noted that the petitioners initially used to get monthly salary
of Rs. 11,000/- by virtue of notification, dated 14 th March,
2014, but, subsequently, the salary was reduced to Rs.
9,000/- per month on the basis of a notification, issued by
the Civil Surgeon-cum-Member Secretary, District Health
Committee, Purnea. Though, the petitioners were initially
appointed for one year, but they were continuing their
services for years together as Executive Assistants in
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
7/62
different hospitals in the District of Purnea. On 3 rd of July,
2015, the Government of Bihar issued a notification,
directing the District Magistrates, Divisional Commissioner
and Principal Secretary of all Departments to treat all the
Executive Assistants engaged in Government Offices
equally, following the uniform service conditions and
payment of salary. By a Notification No. 860, dated 18th of
September, 2018, issued by the General Administration
Department and published in Bihar Extraordinary Gazette,
an order was passed relating to service conditions of
contractual employees posted in different departments as per
the recommendation of a High Level Committee,
recommending execution of certain proposals. The relevant
extracts of the said notification are quoted below:-
“2. The Committee has also given
recommendations in respect of each category
of contractual employees working under each
scheme/department, mentioning exactly which
of the policy recommendations given by the
Committee will be applicable in respect of
different employees.
The recommendations of the high
level committee have been made in
two circumstances-
(i) The tenure of some
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
8/62projects/schemes is limited. These projects are
usually projects/schemes financed by
Central/Centrally Sponsored/International
Financial Institutions and are approved for a
limited period. Their implementation after the
prescribed period is subject to acceptance by
the Central Government/International
Financial Institutions. Therefore,
appointments are made on contract basis for
the duration of the projects. This category
also includes such appointments where the
creation of posts is temporary and has been
done for contractual appointment only.
(ii) In the second situation, the post
is permanent, but appointments are made on
contract due to the delay in giving
recommendations for regular appointments by
the Public Service Commission / Staff
Selection Commission until the regular
appointments are made. (Emphasis supplied)
………
4. After due consideration of the
recommendations of the committee, the
following decisions are taken:
(i) The decision of the State
Government on the recommendations of the
Committee regarding the above two
categories of contract employees is attached
as Appendix ‘A’.
(ii) The services of data entry
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
9/62
operators provided through Beltron are being
availed by all the departments. Therefore,
after consulting all the departments, this
matter should be reconsidered and returned to
the high level committee to submit
recommendations.
(iii) Contractual employees working
in the subordinate boards / corporations /
authorities of certain departments, in respect
of whom no recommendation has been made
in the report under consideration submitted by
the committee. The committee should be
directed to reconsider and submit its
recommendations in this regard.
(iv) In cases where irregular/illegal
appointments have been discussed by the
committee, the administrative department will
take appropriate action after
obtaining legal opinion.”
Appendix (A)
1.K- Regarding continuance of
service of Contractual employees till the age
of retirement or scheme period, whichever is
earlier. (Committee Report page 276-278)
(emphasis supplied)
The committee recommends that
after the approval of the recommendations of
the committee by the Cabinet, every
concerned
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
10/62
department/authority/corporation/society can
issue an office order to the effect that this
appointment of contractual employees is
completely temporary after obtaining the
order of the competent authority and the
scheme/post is till the period of acceptance or
till regular appointment. It will also be clearly
mentioned that on the grounds of ill-health or
disciplinary grounds or due to unsatisfactory
service or on attaining the normal age of
retirement, the service will/may be terminated
before the period of acceptance of the
scheme/post or even before regular
appointment. It will also be clearly mentioned
in the office order that other conditions of
contractual appointment will remain the same
as mentioned in the appointment letter,
agreement and indemnity bond letter
(wherever applicable) issued at the time of
appointment. This order will be issued
separately for all the posts of contractual
employees.
It is noteworthy here that there may be a delay
in issuing different orders by different
departments and in the meantime the current
tenure of many contract employees may end.
Therefore, to implement it with immediate
effect, the relevant paragraphs of the
guidelines issued by the General
Administration Department vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
11/62
Memorandum No. 3/M-78/2005-No. 2401,
dated 18.07.2007 can be amended. (emphasis
supplied)
Apart from the above, the following three
recommendations can also be included in the
said memorandum –
(1) It is also worth mentioning here that
sometimes it is possible that contract
employees working on contract post/s are not
required in the department where they are
working but posts of the same designation and
same qualification are vacant in other
departments and appointment to those posts is
necessary on contract basis. In such a
situation, instead of making new appointments
on those posts/posts, contract employees
working on posts with similar designation and
qualification in other departments, who are no
longer needed in that department, can be
appointed on contract basis on vacant posts in
other departments. For this, a fresh agreement
will have to be made with the concerned
department. It is noteworthy here that this
facility will not be available to those
contractual employees who have been
removed due to disciplinary reasons.
(emphasis supplied)
(2) It is also noteworthy here that many
contractual employees do not succeed in the
examination/interview/other investigation
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
12/62
taken for regular appointments, in such a
situation, if the posts are vacant even after
regular appointments, then those employees
who have not been selected in the process of
regular appointment can be considered for
regular appointment instead of appointment
on contractual basis.
(3) Some cases have come before the
Committee where contractual employees were
removed despite availability of the post
because the process of regular appointment
has been started. Due to this, while on one
hand the departmental work is disrupted, on
the other hand the contractual employees have
to face financial difficulties. Therefore, the
committee recommends that where there are
such cases, the removed contractual
employees can be appointed till regular
appointments are made. (emphasis supplied)
5. On the basis of the aforesaid Notification, dated
18th of September, 2018, BPSM under General
Administration Department issued Notification No. 436,
dated 26th of February, 2019, directing, inter alia that:-
(i) The IT Managers, I.T.Assistants-cum-
Executive Assistants engaged on contractual
basis under BPSM would continue to work till
the completion of the scheme or till attainment
of 60 years, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
13/62
employment of contractual employees need not
be ratified on yearly basis.
(ii) The appointment authority is empowered to
terminate the services of contractual
employees before attainment of 60 years or the
completion of the scheme on the ground of his
physical illness, administrative reason or
incompetence.
(iii) All other conditions contained in the
agreement for service which the employees
executed by an agreement for service shall
remain in force.
6. On or about 12th of February, 2021, the District
Health Committee intimated the District Magistrate, Purnea
that due to paucity of fund, the District Health Committee
cannot make payment of the salary to Executive Assistants.
Therefore, the service of the Executive Assistants were
requested to be taken back for placing them in vacant posts
of other departments.
7. The petitioners further contended that similarly
placed Executive Assistants were absorbed in vacant posts
of other departments in the Government, in the Districts of
Ara and Araria, but the District Magistrate, Purnea directed
the Managing Director, BELTRON to take steps to fill up
the vacant posts of the Executive Assistants in the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
14/62
Purnea.
8. The petitioners filed representation before the
authorities, praying for their absorption in the vacant posts
lying in different departments in the District of Purnea as
Executive Assistants but the District Magistrate acted
illegally and contrary to the gazette notification, mentioned
above as well as the order, dated 26th of February, 2019,
whereby and whereunder, the age of superannuation of
contractual Executive Assistants were fixed at 60 years,
wrongly issued a letter, dated 23rd of December, 2021,
through which he forwarded the list of the petitioners to the
BELTRON for taking appropriate steps in the light of the
Memo No. 1347, dated 18th of August, 2021.
9. The Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter
affidavit on behalf of the State/Respondents. It is contended
on behalf of the respondents that the Executive Assistants
were appointed on contractual basis on the basis of a panel
prepared by the District Committee under the Chairmanship
of the District Magistrate for each districts. The recruitment
process of the Executive Assistants varied from districts to
districts. The Executive Assistants under BPSM had lesser
remuneration as compared to Data Entry Operators
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
15/62
appointed by BELTRON through a process of examination.
Both of them provide data entry services. Therefore, the
Executive Assistants demanded parity of remuneration with
the Data Entry Operators appointed through BELTRON,
given the similar nature of work. While considering the
demand of the Executive Assistants with regard to equality
of pay for equal work, the State Government considered it
necessary to standardize the recruitment process of the
Executive Assistants across the districts and also viz-a-viz
the Data Entry Operators selected through BELTRON by a
uniform examination process. Thus, Governing Council of
BPSM in its meeting, dated 8th of July, 2019, taking into
consideration the lack of uniformity with respect to
empanelment of Executive Assistants across the districts as
against the uniform process of examination of empanelment
of Data Entry Operators appointed through BELTRON,
decided to do away with the recruitment of Executive
Assistants from the districts panels and directed to fill up the
further vacancies by requesting the BELTRON to provide
the Data Entry Operators for the same.
10. The resolution of the meeting of the Governing
Council of BPSM, dated 8th of July, 2019, is annexed with
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
16/62
the counter affidavit and marked with Annexure C.
11. On the basis of the above decision, BPSM
issued a notification, dated 31st of July, 2019 / 2nd of August,
2019, directing, inter alia, that henceforth new vacancies as
well as additional posts of Executive Assistants would be
filled up by BPSM through BELTRON. As soon as there
would be vacancy in the sanctioned posts of Executive
Assistants in a district, the said vacancy would be filled up,
maintaining reservation roster by the Data Entry Operators
appointed through BELTRON. The salary of the Data Entry
Operators engaged through BELTRON would be disbursed
directly to BELTRON by BPSM and BELTRON would
disburse the salary of the Data Entry Operators accordingly.
Respondent No. 2 also annexed the resolution of the
meeting of the Governing Council of BPSM under the
Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Health, on 13th of
December, 2019 among other documents.
12. It is contended on behalf of the Respondents
that in view of urgent requirement of Executive
Assistants/Data Entry Operators in various Government
Departments and other offices during the ongoing panel
preparation process by BELTRON, the Governing Council in
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
17/62
its meeting, dated 13th of December, 2019 decided to allow
the recruitment of the Executive Assistants from the district
panels as an interim measure till BELTRON complete its
panel preparation process, subject to certain conditions, viz,
the contract will be for three months only, subject to extension
as per the requirement of the concerned Department/Offices,
provided the candidates clear the examinations of Data Entry
Operators conducted by the BELTRON. The said interim
arrangement was extended from time to time and finally as
per Clause-4 of the said interim arrangement, mentioned in
Memo No. 2341, dated 23rd of December, 2019, it was
terminated in January, 2021, when BELTRON completed the
process of selection of Data Entry Operators. After the said
selection by BELTRON, which was intimated to the State
Government, vide letter, dated 8th of January, 2021, the
Governing Council of BPSM resolved in its meeting, dated
5th of February, 2021 that the case of the candidates whose
services was not required in the office of employment and
needed reemployment was taken up in the light of the decision
of the State Government’s Memo No. 12534, dated 17th of
September, 2018 and it was decided that since BPSM has
stopped empanelment process, it cannot have a reemployment
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
18/62
process under the Society. Since the recruitment process has
been vested with BELTRON, any reemployment should also
be done by BELTRON. It was further decided that in the
interest of the candidates, they would be provided opportunity
of being empaneled under BELTRON for further
placement/reemployment as per the provisions of selection by
BELTRON with relevant relaxation in age as well as special
educational requirements. The Respondents also urged that the
BELTRON conducted eligibility test on 5th of July, 2023 and
successful candidates have already been empaneled. Thus, the
State Respondents under the facts and circumstances stated
above supported the action taken by the District Magistrate,
Purnea, referring the names of the petitioners to the
BELTRON for their selection and empanelment after
conducting necessary tests.
13. The District Magistrate, Purnea and the Civil
Surgeon cum Member Secretary, District Health Society,
Purnea have filed a separate counter affidavit stating, inter
alia, that under policy decision, the Executive Director, State
Health Society, Bihar, Patna informed vide letter no. 1187,
dated 3rd of June, 2020, to all the Civil Surgeon cum Member
Secretary, District Health Societies, Bihar that M/s Urmila
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
19/62
International Services Private Limited, Patna has been
selected for establishment and functioning of Data Centres in
all 38 districts of Bihar. Therefore, in terms of the said order,
all consequential orders were passed, which do not require
any interference by this Court. The above named Respondents
also submits that similar matter was disposed of by this Court
in C.W.J.C. No. 7250 of 2020, vide order, dated 21st of
January, 2021, directing the petitioners to approach before the
new outsourcing agency, namely, Urmila International
Services Private Limited.
14. They also contend that the instant writ petition is
bad for non-joinder of M/s Urmila International Services
Private Limited as party Respondents.
15. Petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the counter
affidavit, filed by the Respondent Nos. 8 and 11, on 23rd of
January, 2023, refuting the contention, stating, inter alia, that
in pursuance to the notification, dated 6th of June, 2013,
issued by the BPSM, a panel of candidates by a committee,
headed by the District Magistrate, Purnea, was prepared,
which contain the names of the petitioners. After their
empanelment, the District Magistrate, Purnea, vide order,
dated 20th of November, 2013, directed the empaneled
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
20/62
petitioners to join at the State Hospitals in the district of
Purnea on the basis of Memo No. 8592, dated 23rd of
October, 2013 and Memo No. 9842, dated 10th of December,
2013, issued by the Health cum Executive Director of the
State Health Committee. Further, vide Memo No. 436, dated
26th of February, 2019, issued by the Additional Mission
Director, services of the petitioners and other similarly
situated persons, were extended till the age of 60 years or till
the culmination of the scheme/programme. However, vide
impugned order, dated 18th of August, 2021, the services of
the petitioners have been returned to the establishment due to
paucity of fund and thereafter the petitioners have not been
placed at the appropriate vacant posts by the District
Magistrate, Purnea. It is also urged by the petitioners that the
decision of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7250 of 2020,
dated 21st of January, 2021, is not applicable under the facts
and circumstances of this case.
16. Again on 13th of August, 2024, the Respondent
No. 11 filed a supplementary counter affidavit and submits
that vide letter no. 1187, dated 3rd of June, 2020, a
communication was made from the Health Society that in all
38 districts, the Data Entry Operators outsourced by M/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
21/62
Urmila International Service Private Limited would be
appointed in place of the petitioners and others in terms of an
agreement between State Health Society and M/s Urmila
International Service Private Limited. As the petitioners were
not outsourced by M/s Urmila International Services Private
Limited, they are not entitled to be posted in the offices under
the control of District Health Society.
17. Respondent No. 11 filed 2nd supplementary
counter affidavit on 23rd of August, 2024, referring to the
same facts and circumstances and further stating that in view
of the agreement executed by the State Health Society and
M/s Urmila International Services Private Limited to the
effect that they would provide the Data Entry Operators for
rendering services of data entry in the offices under the
control of State Health Society, the petitioners were removed
and their services were returned back to the BELTRON vide
memo no. 14161, dated 23rd of December, 2021, by the
District Health Society, Purnea and in their places altogether
31 operators are functioning in the district of Purnea, whose
services have been provided by the M/s Urmila International
Service Private Limited.
18. The Respondent No. 7, Executive Director, State
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
22/62
Health Society, Purnea has filed a separate counter affidavit,
stating similar factual circumstance as stated by the
Respondent Nos. 8 and 11.
19. That on 6th February, 2025, the respondent no.
11 submitted a supplementary affidavit stating, inter alia, that
on 3rd June 2020, the Department of Health, Government of
Bihar, issued a communication that all 38 districts’ Data Entry
Operators would be recruited through outsourcing agency,
namely, M/s Urmila Service Pvt. Ltd. with whom an
agreement was executed by the State Health Society.
Therefore, the respondent no. 11 had no other alternative but
to remove the petitioners from their posts and 31 members of
Data Entry Operators have been engaged as per the
recommendation of M/s Urmila International Service Pvt. Ltd.
The respondent no. 11 also submits that their candidature
through M/s Urmila International Pvt. Ltd. and they were
recommended for the post of Data Entry Operators in place of
executive assistants by the said outsourcing agency and they
have been engaged as Data Entry Operators in the District of
Purnea.
20. The State Health Society (respondent no. 7) also
filed 3rd supplementary counter affidavit on 5th April 2025 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
23/62
challenged the maintainability of the instant writ petition on
the ground that the society is registered under the Societies
Registration Act and the affairs of the society managed and
regulated by the governing body of State Health Society. The
State Health Society has been vested with power of
outsourcing of any private agency to provide their services. In
support of the above contention, the State Health society has
filed the photocopy of the Minutes of 27th Governing body
meeting dated 21st February 2018 and the relevant extract of
HR Policy of the State Health Society along with the counter
affidavit.
21. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the
supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents on
22nd February 2025, mainly, against the counter affidavit filed
by the respondent no. 2. The petitioners have denied and
disputed the contention of the State respondents as depicted in
the counter affidavit shown by respondent no. 2 and submitted
that the panel prepared through BELTRON was in addition to
the executive assistants selected through the panel prepared by
the District Magistrates of respective Districts. The State
Government has failed to produce any document in the
counter affidavit to show that the panels of executive
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
24/62
assistants prepared by the district magistrates for each district
in the year 2013 were terminated/canceled by virtue of the
above notification. On the contrary, the documents filed on
behalf of the State respondents clearly show that BELTRON
was directed to prepare panel of DEOs to fill up the vacant
posts of executive assistants. The petitioners reiterated the
relevant decision taken by the Government of Bihar vide
Gazette Notification dated 18th September, 2018. The
petitioners further state that the services of the petitioners
have been returned by the District Health Society to the
District Magistrate, Purnea vide memo no. 956 dated 18th
August 2021 due to paucity of fund. Due to such
circumstances, the District Magistrate, Purnea was duty bound
to place the petitioners in vacant posts of executive assistants
in other departments of the district or even in other districts in
the State of Bihar. The petitioners have reiterated that when
the executive assistants of other districts, namely, Ara and
Araria were absorbed in other departments, denial of such
right to the petitioners is violation of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
22. These are all about pleadings by the contesting
parties in the instant writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
25/62
23. Mr. P. K. Verma, learned AAG 3 and Mr. K. K.
Sinha, learned Advocate on behalf of the Health Society in
course of their argument challenged the maintainability of the
writ petition on the ground that the petitioners are contractual
employees they were initially appointed for a period of one
year but their terms were extended from time to time on the
basis of the decision taken by the Health Society on the basis
of various directions/orders passed by the BPSMS under the
General Administration Department, Government of Bihar.
However, extension of term of contractual employment does
not confer any right to the petitioners to claim their
entitlement to continue with the work till 60 years or till the
end of the scheme/project, whichever is earlier. It is pointed
out by the learned AAG 3 that at the time of their initial
appointment, the petitioners executed an indemnity bond
where they agreed that they would not make or raise any
demand of permanent employment in the State Government.
The petitioners are bounded by the said bond and they cannot
claim permanent nature of their job as executive assistants in
the District of Purnea or in any other District in the State of
Bihar.
24. Secondly, it is submitted by the learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
26/62
Advocate on behalf of the State Health Society, respondent
no. 7 herein, that admittedly panel of executive assistants were
prepared by the District Magistrate, Purnea primarily for the
work of data entry and their services were placed under the
respondent no. 11 for conducting data entry work in respect of
the patients, their treatment, medicine supplied to them, etc. in
the State hospitals situated in the District of Purnea. The State
Health Society is registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. A writ petition is not maintainable against a society
registered under Societies Registration Act. Thus, the writ
petition is not maintainable. The learned Advocate on behalf
of the State Health Society refers to series of judgments
passed by this Court on similar facts and circumstances. He
first refers to an unreported decision of this Court passed in
CWJC No. 7250 of 2020 vide order dated 21st January 2021,
a Coordinate Bench while disposing of the writ petition
observed that data management service of the Health Society
is presently outsourced to newly added private respondent.
Therefore, the petitioners should approach the private
respondent in respect of their claim for being allowed to work
as Data Entry Operators. In the aforesaid judgment it is
recorded that the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
27/62
of the private respondent, namely M/s Urmila International
Services Pvt. Ltd. (added respondent no. 13) undertook that as
per requirement, and maintaining parity with other similarly
situated as the petitioners, who were earlier discharging the
duties on data management service, the claim of the
petitioners would be considered. Thus, the writ court finally
disposed of the said writ petition giving liberty to the
petitioners to raise their claim before the added respondent no.
13. Another writ petition bearing CWJC No. 10938 of 2021
was disposed of on 3rd October, 2023 by a Co-ordinate Bench
holding, inter alia, that the relief prayed for by the petitioners
was predominantly against a private individual, therefore, the
writ petition is not maintainable and the said writ petition was
dismissed again, giving liberty to the petitioners to avail
appropriate remedy in accordance with law from the
outsourcing agent, namely, Urmila International Pvt. Ltd.
Similar order was passed in CWJC No. 6906 of 2020 on 03rd
July 2020. This Court disposed of CWJC No. 7092 of 2020
on 09th December 2021 also, holding, inter alia, that the
grievance of the petitioner is against the private entity and the
writ petition is not maintainable. CWJC No. 9993 of 2021
was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench on 19th September,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
28/62
2023 with the following observations: –
“5. The petitioners have no privity
of contract with the State or its Authorities, as
is apparent from Annexure 1 Series, whereby
they were engaged by the Private Entity
Infosystem and Solution Pvt. Ltd, for being
deputed at various centres as Data Entry
Operators.
6. The petitioners cannot be said to
be the persons aggrieved by Annexure 8,
which only holds that instead of Infosystem
and Solution Pvt. Ltd, Urmila International
Services is to be allowed to perform in view of
the contract entered with Urmila International
on 28.02.2020. This letter does not affect any
subsisting right of the petitioners, or any
corresponding obligation on the State
authorities for which the petitioners may be
permitted to invoke the extraordinary and
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
writ at the instance of the petitioner, therefore,
is thus found to be devoid of any evidence and
the same is dismissed.”
25. Similar order was passed in CWJC No. 13500
of 2021vide order dated 04th January, 2022. CWJC No.
10148 of 2021 vide order dated 1st December 2021, CWJC
No. 17633 of 2024 vide order dated 21.11.2024 and CWJC
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
29/62
No. 9967 of 2024 vide order dated 18th July, 2024 passed by
this Court.
26. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the
State respondents that the above-mentioned orders passed in
the writ petitions have reached its finality. In the line of the
said orders referred to hereinabove, the instant writ petition is
not maintainable.
27. Mr. Ashish Giri, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand,
submits that the petitioners do not have any claim against the
private respondents. The petitioners were empaneled by the
District Administration, Purnea to discharge work as executive
assistants in various departments admittedly on contractual
basis. The services of the petitioners were placed under
respondent no. 11 to discharge the functions of Data Entry
Operator in different State hospitals in the district of Purnea.
They were discharging the said work continuously and
uninterruptedly till 12th February, 2021. Thereafter, the
Surgeon-cum-Member Secretary, District Health Committee,
Purnea informed the Deputy Collector (Establishment),
Purnea that due to paucity of fund, the State Health
Committee, Bihar, Patna has directed the District Health
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
30/62
Committee to take works of executive assistants/computer
operators from a private agency under the name and style of
M/s Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd., Patna as the
District Health Committee, Purnea could not make payment of
the salary to the executive assistants, their services were
placed at the disposal of the District Magistrate, Purnea vide a
letter dated 12th February 2021. Thus, the petitioners were not
terminated or removed till date. Their contractual employment
was not severed. The instant writ petition has been filed with a
prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State
respondents to allow the petitioners to work till they attain 60
years of age or completion/cessation of the scheme where they
are posted to discharge their work, whichever is earlier.
28. In support of his contention, Mr. Giri refers to
an order bearing no. 436 dated 26th February 2019 issued by
the BPSM under the General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar. Paragraph No. 1 of the said order
(Annexure-7) runs thus: –
“1.बबिहहार प्रशहासबनिक ससुधहार बमिशनि ससोसहाइटटी कक
अधटीनि ससृबजित ससंबविदहात्मिक पद परबनियसोबजित
आई०टटी०प्रबिसंधक,आई०टटी०सहहायकत कहायर्यपहालक
सहहायक कटी बनियसोजिनि अविबध कक ससंबिध
सं मिम:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
31/62i. बबिहहार प्रशहासबनिक ससुधहार बमिशनि ससोसहाइटटी असंतरर्यत
ससंबविदहा पर बनियसोबजित एविसं कहायर्यरत आई०टटी०प्रबिसंधक ,
आई०टटी०सहहायक तथहा कहायर्यपहालक सहहायक कहा
बनियसोजिनि पपूरटी तरह अस्थहायटी हह तथहा यसोजिनिहा अविबध
समिहाबपत अथविहा 60 विरर्य कटी आयसु , जिसो पहलक लहारपू
हसो, तक कक बलए हह। फलततः ससंबविदहा कबमिर्यययों कहा
प्रत्यकक विरर्य ससंबविदहा अविबध बविस्तहार बकयक जिहानिक कटी
आविश्यकतहा निहहीं हसोरटी।
ii. अस्विस्थतहा यहा अनिसुशहासबनिक आधहार पर अथविहा
सकविहा अससंतसोरजिनिक हसोनिक कक कहारण यसोजिनिहा अविबध
अथविहा 60 विरर्य कटी आयसु, जिसो पहलक लहारपू हसो. कक पपूविर्य
भटी बनियसुबकत प्रहाबधकहार दहारहा सकविहा समिहापतकटी जिहा
सकतटी हह।
iii. ससंबविदहा बनियसोजिनि कटी अन्य शतर्ते बनियसोजिनि कक
समिय बनिरर्यत बनियसोजिनि पत/ एकरहारनिहामिहा मिम
असंबकत यथहावित रहमरटी।”
29. Thus, it was decided by the BPSM under the
General Administration Department, Government of Bihar: –
(i) That the employment of IT Manager, IT
Assistant and Executive Assistant employed
and working on contract under BPSMS is
completely temporary and would continue till
the end of scheme or till the age of 60 years,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
32/62whichever is earlier. As a result, there will be
no need to extend the contract period of
contractual employees every year.
(ii) The service can be terminated by
the authority even before the plan period or 60
years, whichever is earlier on account of ill
health or disciplinary ground or unsatisfactory
service.
(iii) Other conditions of contractual
employment will remain the same as
mentioned in the employment letter /agreement
issued at the time of employment.
30. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Giri that the
order dated 26th February. 2019 by its declaration takes away
the effect of initial agreement executed by the petitioners by
way of indemnity bond. Petitioners work was protected till the
attainment of age of 60 years or completion or cessation of the
scheme where they have been working and the petitioners
cannot be terminated except on three grounds, viz. (a) ill
health, (b) disciplinary ground and (c) unsatisfactory service.
The petitioners were also granted Casual Leave, Earned
Leave, Maternity Leave, Paternity Leave and Leave Without
Pay by virtue of the above-mentioned notification no. 436,
dated 26th February, 2019.
31. It is further contended on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
33/62
petitioners that subsequent decision by the State Government
to engage DEOs through private outsourcing agency is
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on
the teeth of Notification No. 436, dated 26th February, 2019
and Extraordinary Gazette Notification dated 18 th September,
2019 issued by the General Administration Department.
32. I have already stated the relevant portions of the
said gazette notification.
33. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the
petitioners in support of his submission refers to a decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of
India, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327. In this reported decision,
the appellants approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court
claiming substantive nature of their duties, which align with
regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme-
based roles they were originally appointed for. They were also
granted promotion on being recommended by the
Departmental Promotional Committee. They were discharging
their duties continuously for over a quarter of a century. On
such factual background, they prayed for regularization before
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The writ petition
being dismissed, they moved to Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
34/62
Appeal. Under such factual background, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held in paragraph no. 5 of the aforesaid decision as
hereunder: –
“5. Having heard the arguments of
both the sides, this Court believes that the
essence of employment and the rights thereof
cannot be merely determined by the initial
terms of appointment when the actual course
of employment has evolved significantly over
time. The continuous service of the appellants
in the capacities of regular employees,
performing duties indistinguishable from those
in permanent posts, and their selection
through a process that mirrors that of regular
recruitment, constitute a substantive departure
from the temporary and scheme-specific nature
of their initial engagement. Moreover, the
appellants’ promotion process was conducted
and overseen by a Departmental Promotional
Committee and their sustained service for
more than 25 years without any indication of
the temporary nature of their roles being
reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary
engagement being specified, merits a
reconsideration of their employment status.
6. The application of the judgment
in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1:
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] by the High Court does
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
35/62not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given
the specific circumstances under which the
appellants were employed and have continued
their service. The reliance on procedural
formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that have
accrued over a considerable period through
continuous service. Their promotion was based
on a specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection
process involving written tests and interviews,
which distinguishes their case from the
appointments through back door entry as
discussed in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka
v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753].”
34. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph no. 8 held as under:
“8. In light of the reasons recorded
above, this Court finds merit in the appellants’
arguments and holds that their service
conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a
reclassification from temporary to regular
status. The failure to recognise the substantive
nature of their roles and their continuous
service akin to permanent employees runs
counter to the principles of equity, fairness,
and the intent behind employment
regulations.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
36/62
35. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the
petitioner next refers to another decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shripal v. Nagar Nigam,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. This is also a case of
contractual workmen who were pressing for regularization
with further prayer to cancel the order issued by the
respondent employer discontinuing their service. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court found on examination of the materials on
record that the employer failed to produce any document that
the appellant workmen had been engaged solely through
contractor, their works were supervised by the contractors.
The employer also failed to establish that the wages were ever
paid by any entity other than the Horticulture Department
which strongly indicates direct control and supervision over
the Workmen’s day-to-day tasks which is a hallmark of an
employer-employee relationship. Had there been a legitimate
third-party contractor, there would have been details of tender
notices, contract agreements, attendance records maintained
by the contractor, or testimony from the contractor’s
representatives. In view of such circumstances, the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that the respondents failed to prove that the
appellants were “contractor’s personnel”. On the other hand,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
37/62
the facts and circumstances of the said decision satisfactorily
established that the appellant workmen performed duties
integral to the respondent employer’s municipal functions
specially the up-keep of parks, horticultural tasks and city
beautification efforts. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph no. 15 of the aforesaid judgment held as hereunder:
–
“15. It is manifest that the Appellant
Workmen continuously rendered their services
over several years, sometimes spanning more
than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls
were not produced in full, the Employer’s
failure to furnish such records–despite
directions to do so–allows an adverse
inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly
disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual
engagements in circumstances where the work
is permanent in nature. Morally and legally,
workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be
dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine
contractor agreement. At this juncture, it
would be appropriate to recall the broader
critique of indefinite “temporary” employment
practices as done by a recent judgment of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
38/62court in Jaggo v.Union of Indiain the following
paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of
temporary employment contracts, as
exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers’
rights and job security. In the private sector,
the rise of the gig economy has led to an
increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of
benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting
workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and
justice, bear an even greater responsibility to
avoid such exploitative employment practices.
When public sector entities engage in misuse
of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig
economy but also sets a concerning precedent
that can erode public trust in governmental
operations.
………
25. It is a disconcerting reality that
temporary employees, particularly in
government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address short-term or
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
39/62seasonal needs, they have increasingly become
a mechanism to evade long-term obligations
owed to employees. These practices manifest
in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential,
recurring, and integral to the functioning of an
institution are often labelled as “temporary”
or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing
identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed without
cause or notice, as seen in the present case.
This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a state
of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality
or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression:
Temporary employees often find themselves
excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay
raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them
and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
40/62Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing
roles performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited
workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates
a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to
offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and
Benefits: Temporary employees are often
denied fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans decades.
This lack of social security subjects them and
their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.”
36. In Shripal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
relied on the earlier Bench’s decision in Jaggo v. Union of
India, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826. I have already
quoted para no. 15 of Shripal (supra) were paragraph no. 22
and 25 of Jaggo (supra) is quoted, therefore, further
discussion does not seem to be necessary.
37. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the
petitioners next refers to an unreported decision of this Court,
passed in CWJC No. 13895 of 2021 (Gauri Shankar
Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar Through the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
41/62
Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of
Bihar, Patna & Ors.) decided on 16th May, 2024. In the
above-mentioned judgment, this Court most respectfully
considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Vinod Kumar (Supra) in paragraph no. 23. At the risk of
repetition, this Court is tempted to record the observation of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 53 of Uma Devi
(supra).
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There
may be cases where irregular appointments
(not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967
SC 1071], R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC
409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan
[(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 :
(1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15
above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been
made and the employees have continued to
work for ten years or more but without the
intervention of orders of the courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularisation of the
services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases
above referred to and in the light of this
judgment. In that context, the Union of India,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
42/62the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to
regularise as a one-time measure, the services
of such irregularly appointed, who have
worked for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders
of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned
posts that require to be filled up, in cases
where temporary employees or daily wagers
are being now employed. The process must be
set in motion within six months from this date.
We also clarify that regularisation, if any
already made, but not subjudice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed
as per the constitutional scheme.”
38. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the
petitioners next submits that the decision passed by a Co-
ordinate Bench in CWJC No. 13550 of 2021 (Kumar Gautam
Anand & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, through the Chief
Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna & Ors.), relied on by the learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the State Health Society, cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
43/62
considered as stare decisis (precedent) because in the said
case, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the
petitioners failed to apprise the Court that they were entitled
to be absorbed in their services.
39. The learned AAG, on the other hand, refers to a
decision of this Court in CWJC No. 5823 of 2020 passed by a
Co-ordinate Bench (CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Chakradhari
Sharan Singh, as his Lordship then was) vide order, dated 23rd
August 2021. In the above-mentioned unreported decision, it
is held by the Co-ordinate Bench that the policy decision of
BPSM, as reflected in the order issued by General
Administration Department on 31st July, 2019 before the
petitioners were actually engaged cannot be said to be
unreasonable, arbitrary, unauthorized or otherwise illegal
which requires engagement of executive assistants from the
panel made available by BELTRON which is a Government of
Bihar undertaking and not a private body.
40. The Co-ordinate Bench was pleased to hold
further that it is evident from the materials on record that the
knowledge in computer is apparently a basic requirement for
the performance of the duty by an Executive Assistant.
Visibly, in the said background, a policy decision appears to
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
44/62
have been taken by the BPSM under the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar to engage
executive assistants for panchayats on the basis of the names
made available by the BELTRON. Thus, in paragraphs no. 15
and 16 of the judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench held as under:
–
“15. It transpires that taking into
account the fact that in some districts including
in the district of Nalanda panels were prepared
pursuant to an advertisement, a decision was
taken to engage executive assistants from such
panels with the condition that they have to
clear an examination to be conducted by
BELTRON. The said policy decision has
apparently been taken to safeguard the interest
of selected candidates on the basis of district
level advertisement who could have been
otherwise not engaged in view of earlier
decision of BPSMS and subsequent order of the
General Administration Department dated
31.07.2019. Had there been no decision in the
nature of order dated 23.12.2019, the
petitioners could not have had any claim for
their engagement, only on the basis of
inclusion of their names in the panel. The
petitioners, unfortunately, are challenging the
decision of BPSMS and the General
Administration Department taken in their
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
45/62interest. Requirement of passing of the
examination of the standard of Data Entry
Operator is apparently in public interest
commensurate with the requirement of the post
in question.
16. Further challenge to the
impugned order and subsequent action on the
ground of the same being violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution is not at all
sustainable. No case of discrimination among
similarly situated candidates of the selection
process in question is made out. The petitioners
cannot allege violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution on the ground that in other
districts engagements were made prior to
decision of BPSMS/ State Government as
contained in the order dated 31.07.2019, since
the said engagements were made out (si)
different selection processes altogether.”
41. I have discussed the pleadings of the parties in
detail. I have also considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the learned senior counsel on behalf of the
petitioners and the State respondents and the learned Advocate
for the State Health Society.
42. At the outset, this Court likes to mention that the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in CWJC 5823 of 2020 is
not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
46/62
Let me assign the reason. The factual circumstances of the
above-mentioned decision passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in CWJC No. 5823 of 2020 is that the Principal
Secretary, Panchyati Raj Department, Government of Bihar
requested the District Magistrates of the State by letter dated
28th July 2018 to prepare panels for engagement of executive
assistants at Panchayati Raj level for implementing schemes
of Central Government and the State Government. On the
basis of such order passed by the Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj, the District Magistrate, Nalanda issued an
advertisement inviting applications for the post of executive
assistants by 30th September 2018. The petitioners were
qualified in the examination conducted for the selection
process and the panel was published on 03rd June 2019. After
preparation of panel but before the placement of the
petitioners, BPSM came out with an order dated 31 st July 2019
directing that the remaining sanctioned vacant post of
executive assistants in the State of Bihar shall be filled up
through BELTRON.
43. Under the above factual circumstances, the Co-
ordinate Bench held that the decision of the BPSM for
conducting examination through BELTRON is in the public
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
47/62
interest and since the petitioners were not engaged in any
panchayat, mere empanelment does not give rise to any right
in favour of the petitioners to challenge the decision of the
State Government.
44. In the instant case, indisputably the petitioners
have been working since 2013. Their initial appointment was
made for a period of one year but subsequently, their tenure of
service was extended till attainment of age of 60 years or
completion of the project, whichever is earlier. They were
granted other benefits of regular service like Casual Leave,
Earn Leave, Maternity Leave, Paternity Leave and, Leave
Without Pay. It is stated in the notification mentioned above
that the order regarding leave of the petitioner was passed
conferring right of the petitioners and they can avail their
leaves according to their requirement. The said notification
further states that the executive assistants cannot be
terminated before attainment of age of 60 years or end of the
project whichever is earlier. Except on the ground of (a) ill
health, (b) disciplinary ground and, (c) unsatisfactory service.
Thus, the said notification no. 436 dated 26 th February 2019
has enumerated valuable rights to the petitioners akin to the
regular employees. It is also stated in the said notification that
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
48/62
there would be no need to extend the contract period of
contractual employees every year.
45. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the
petitioners was made by a selection process conducted by the
Committee constituted by the District Magistrate, Purnea.
Therefore, it is not the case of the State respondents or the
Health Society that empanelment of the petitioners was made
without any selection process arbitrarily by the District
Magistrate. As the petitioners were discharging their duties in
the State-owned hospitals in the District of Purnea since 2013,
they cannot now be obligated to appear in examination
conducted by BELTRON as per Notification No. 1382 dated
31st July, 2019.
46. It is important to note that the Notification No.
1382 dated 31st July, 2019 speaks about the recruitment of
additional (अतततरकत) posts and vacant posts (तरकत) of
executive assistants through BELTRON. Annexure-E to the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents is the
Minutes of 25th Meeting dated 13th December, 2019 under the
chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of the governing counsel
of BPSM. In agenda one of the said Meeting it was resolved
as hereunder:
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
49/62“बदनिनांक-08.07.2019 कसो आहपूत शहासटी पबररद कटी
23 विहीं बिहठक कक कहायर्याविलटी बबिसंद सु ससंख्यहा-04 पर बलए
रए बनिणर्यय कक आलसोक मिम बबिहहार प्रशहासबनिक ससुधहार
बमिशनि ससोसहाइटटी कक आदकश जहापनांक-1382, बदनिनांक-
31.07.2019 दहारहा यह आदकश बनिरर्यत बकयहा रयहा हह
बक बबिहहार प्रशहासबनिक ससुधहार बमिशनि ससोसहाइटटी असंतरर्यत
कहायर्यपहालक सहहायक हकतसु ससृबजित पदयों पर बनियसोबजित
एविसं कहायर्यरत कहायर्यपहालक सहहायकयों कक अबतबरकत अबि
नियक बरबकतययों कक बविरुद बनियसोजिनि बिकल्टहानि कक मिहाध्यमि
सक बकयहा जिहायकरहा। बजिस बजिलहा असंतरर्यत कहायर्यपहालक
सहहायक कक ससृबजित पदर्या कक बविरुद बरबकतयनां हयोंरटी,
विह बजिलहा बरबकतययों कक अनिसुरूप आदशर्य आरक्षण रसोस्टर
सु क बिकल्टहानि सक डहाटहा इन्टटी
कहा अनिसुपहालनि करतक हयआपरकटरयों कटी सकविहा प्रहापत करनिक हकतसु अबधयहाचनिहा
करकरहा। बिकल्टहानि दहारहा मिनांर कक अनिसुरूप डहाटहा इन्टटी
आपरकटरयों कटी सकविहा उपलब्ध करहाई जिहायकरटी। बिकल्टहानि
दहारहा बजिलयों कसो उपलब्ध करहायक रयक डहाटहा इन्टटी
आपरकटरयों कहा भसुरतहानि बबिहहार प्रशहासबनिक ससुधहार बमिशनि
ससोसहाइटटी दहारहा बिकल्टहानि कसो बकयहा जिहायकरहा।
इस क्रमि मिम पसंचहायतटी रहाजि बविभहार एविसं
कबतपय बजिलयों सक प्रहापत यह अनिसुरसोध बक सरकहार
दहारहा ससंचहाबलत/बक्रयहाबन्वित यसोजिनिहाओसं कक ससुचहारू रूप सक
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
50/62
बनिष्पहादनि हकतसु बजिलहा स्तरटीय बविबभन कहायर्यालययों/ बविभहारर्या
कटी मिनांर कक आलसोक मिम बजिलहा स्तरटीय पहनिल सक
कहायर्यपहालक सहहायक कटी सकविहा उपलब्ध करहानिक हकतसु
बनिदकश बदयहा जिहाय, शहासटी पबररद कटी बदनिनांक-
20.09.2019 कसो आहपूत 24 विहीं बिहठक कटी कहायर्याविलटी
बबिसंद सु ससंख्यहा-06 कक रूप मिम शहासटी पबररद कटी 23 विहीं
बिहठक कक उपरसोकत विबणर्यत बनिणर्यय पर आसंबशक ससंशसोधनि
कहा प्रस्तहावि रखहा रयहा थहा बजिस पर शहासटी पबररद
दहारहा बनिम्नबलबखत बनिणर्यय बलयहा रयहातः-
“बनिणर्ययतः आरहामिटी डकढ मिहाह मिम बिकल्टहानि कक दहारहा
बविभहार/बजिलयों कटी अबधयहाचनिहा कक आलसोक मिम
डहाटहा इसंटटी आपरकटरयों कटी सकविहाएए उपलब्ध
करहानिक कटी कहारर्यविहाई कटी जिहाएरटी। आविश्यकतहानिसुसहार
शहासटी पबररद कटी आरहामिटी बिहठक मिम इस
प्रस्तहावि कसो बविचहारहाथर्य रखहा जिहाएरहा।”
हहाल कटी समिटीक्षहा बिहठकयों मिम रहाजिस्वि एविसं भपूबमि ससुधहार
बविभहार एविसं पसंचहायतटी रहाजि बविभहार दहारहा बिकल्टहानि सक डहाटहा
इसंटटी आपरकटर कटी सकविहाएए निहहीं बमिल पहानिक सक उनिकक
मिहत्विपपूणर्य बविभहारटीय कहायरसं कक बिहाबधत हसोनिक कहा बबिसंद सु
उठहायहा रयहा हह।
उपरसोकत कक आलसोक मिम बबिहहार प्रशहासबनिक ससुधहार
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
51/62
बमिशनि ससोसहाइटटी कक अधटीनि बजिलयों कक कहायर्यपहालक
सहहायक कक पहनिल सक कहायर्यपहालक सहहायकयों कटी सकविहाएए
उपलब्ध करहाए जिहानिक कक प्रस्तहावि पर शहासटी पबररद कहा
अनिसुमिसोदनि प्रहाबथर्यत हह।
बनिणर्ययतः असंतबरमि व्यविस्थहा कक रूप मिम बबिहहार प्रशहासबनिक
ससुधहार बमिशनि ससोसहाईटटी कक अधटीनि बजिलयों कक
कहायर्यपहालक सहहायक कक पहनिल सक बविभहारयों / बजिलयों कक
कहायर्यालययों कसो उनिकटी अबधयहाचनिहा कक आलसोक मिम
कहायर्यपहालक सहहायकयों कटी सकविहाएए बनिम्नबलबखत शतरसं कक
सहाथ उपलब्ध करहाई जिहाएरटीतः –
1. यह बनियसोजिनि मिहात 3 मिहाह कक बलए हसोरहा।
2. 3 मिहाह कक बनियसोजिनि अविबध मिम इस असंतबरमि
व्यविस्थहा असंतरर्यत बनियसोबजित सभटी कहायर्यपहालक सहहायकयों
कसो बिकल्टहानि दहारहा आयसोबजित दक्षतहा परटीक्षहा मिम उतटीणर्य
हसोनिहा अबनिविहायर्य हसोरहा। दक्षतहा परटीक्षहा कहा स्तर बिकल्टहानि
कक डहाटहा इसंटटी आपरकटर (DEO) हकतसु बनिधर्याबरत
मिहापदसंड कक अनिसुरूप हसोरहा।
3. दक्षतहा परटीक्षहा मिम उतटीणर्य कहायर्यपहालक सहहायकयों कहा
बनियसोजिनि आविश्यकतहानिसुसहार 3 मिहाह कक उपरनांत जिहारटी
रखहा जिहा सकतहा हह। अनिसुतटीणर्य कहायर्यपहालक सहहायकयों
कहा बनियसोजिनि तत्कहाल प्रभहावि सक समिहापत कर बदयहा
जिहाएरहा। बनियसोजिनि कक समिय इस आशय कहा दहाबयत्वि
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
52/62
पत इनि बनियसोबजित कहायर्यपहालक सहहायकयों सक प्रहापत
बकयहा जिहानिहा अबनिविहायर्य हसोरहा।
4. बनियसोजिनि कटी कहारर्यविहाई बिकल्टहानि दहारहा उसकटी
सपूचटीकरण प्रबक्रयहा सम्पन हसोनिक तक कटी जिहा सककरटी।
उसकक उपरनांत बकसटी भटी प्रकहार कहा कसोई भटी बनियसोजिनि
बजिलहा स्तरटीय पहनिल सक निहहीं बकयहा जिहाएरहा।
5.- बनियसोजिनि कटी प्रबक्रयहा पपूरटी करनिक कक सहाथ-सहाथ
इनि सभटी बनियसोबजित कहायर्यपहालक सहहायकयों कहा दक्षतहा
परटीक्षहा आयसोबजित करनिक हकतसु बजिलहा पदहाबधकहाबरययों दहारहा
इनि बनियसोबजित कहायर्यपहालक सहहायकयों कहा आनि लहाईनि
बनिबिसंधनि हकतसु बिकल्टहानि सक अनिसुरसोध बकयहा जिहाएरहा तथहा
उकत क्रमि मिम सभटी आविश्यक कहारर्यविहाई ससमिय पपूणर्य
कटी जिहाएरटी।
6. बिकल्टहानि दहारहा बनिधर्याबरत शसुल्क रु.1000/- प्रबत
अभ्यथर कहा भसुरतहानि बबिहहार प्रशहासबनिक ससुधहार बमिशनि
ससोसहाईटटी/ ससंबिबसं धत बविभहार / ससंबिबसं धत कहायर्यालय दहारहा
बकयहा जिहाएरहा।
7. बबिहहार प्रशहासबनिक ससुधहार बमिशनि ससोसहाईटटी कहा
आदकश जहापनांक 1382 बदनिनांक 31.07.2019 कसो
इस हद तक ससंशसोबधत समिझहा जिहाएरहा
47. The above resolution clearly states that
BELTRON was directed to prepare panel in respect of the post
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
53/62
created by BPSM subsequently, and to fill up the vacancy
caused on the post of executive assistants due to one reason or
other. Therefore, the petitioners were not under obligation to
be empaneled through a selection process by BELTRON.
48. Mr. Verma, the learned Additional Advocate
General as strenuously argued that the petitioners are
contractual employees. They were not empaneled or posted
against any sanctioned post. They were temporarily appointed
on year to year basis for the purpose of data entry job in State
owned hospitals. Therefore, they do not have any right to
claim any relief in the instant writ petition, because, if the
employer wants efficient workers for a particular job, the
employees may be directed to go through a selection test on
the subject in which they would work. It is not the case that
the petitioners would be freshly appointed through M/s
Urmila International Services Private Limited. By a policy
decision, Urmila International Services Private Limited is now
service provider of data centres maintained in all the
departments in the State of Bihar. Therefore, when the
Respondent No. 11 returned the service of the petitioners due
to paucity of fund, the District Magistrate, Purnea referred the
case of the petitioners to BELTRON, directing them to clear
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
54/62
the test conducted by BELTRON for appointment of Data
Entry Operators. There is nothing wrong in it because the
employer always has the right to consider and test efficiency
of its employees.
49. The above submission made by the learned
AAG is elaborated during his argument when he submits that
where the relationship of master and servant is purely
contractual, such contract of personal service is not
specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in
Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even if the
termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal or
otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of
the employee is only to seek damages and not specific
performance. Courts will neither declare such termination to
be a nullity nor declare that the contract of employment
subsists nor grant the consequential relief of reinstatement.
50. The above rule is of course subject to three well
recognized exceptions. They are:
(i) where a civil servant is removed from service in
contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India (or any law made under Article 309);
(ii) where a workman having the protection of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
55/62Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wrongly terminated from
service; and
(iii) where an employee of a statutory body is
terminated from service in breach or violation of any
mandatory provision of a statute or statutory rules.
51. According to the learned AAG, there is, thus, a
clear distinction between public employment governed by
statutory rules and private employment governed purely by
contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief, damages or
reinstatement with consequential reliefs are based on
determination of the question whether the employment is
governed purely by contract or by a statute or statutory rules.
Even where the employer is a statutory body, where the
relationship is purely governed by contract with no element of
statutory governance, the contract of personal service will not
be specifically enforceable. Conversely, where the employer is
a non-statutory body, but the employment is governed by a
statute or statutory rules, a declaration that the termination is
null and void and that the employee should be reinstated can
be granted by courts.
52. In support of the above observation, this Court
can rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
56/62
State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. S.N. Goyal, reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 92.
53. In the instant case, however, factual position is
something different. It is true that the petitioners were initially
employed by a Committee, constituted by the District
Magistrate, Purnea, on the basis of a direction, issued by the
BPSM, initially for a period of one year. Subsequently, while
the petitioners were working, the State Government, vide
Notification No. 436, dated 31st July, 2019, extended the
period of employment till 60 years or till the end of the
project, whichever is earlier. In view of such decision, the
Executive Authority in the districts was directed not to renew
the contract of the petitioners on year to year basis. It was
further directed that they could only be terminated from
service on the grounds of ill health, disciplinary reasons or
inefficiency in service. Incorporation of the above conditions
vide notification, dated 31st July, 2019 by the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar does not
permit the State Respondents to pass any order against the
petitioners for their withdrawal from service.
54. It will not be out of place to mention that
resolution of 25th meeting of the Governing Council of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
57/62
BPSM on 13th December, 2019 that services of the existing
Executive Assistants would be extended for three months only
is a glaring instance of executive arbitrariness because the said
decision was taken in utter violation of the notification, dated
31st July, 2019.
55. I have a scrupulously gone through the
pleadings of the parties. None of the respondents in their
counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavits
alleged against any of the petitioners that the official functions
discharged by them were not up to the mark or in other words,
they are inefficient. It is not disputed that the petitioners have
been performing their duties of data entry since the year 2013.
If their work was found to be unsatisfactory, they or any of
them could have been terminated by virtue of the government
order, dated 31st July, 2019, but the respondents did not take
any such step against the petitioners. The petitioners were
appointed under the extant rules applicable in the year 2013.
At the risk of repetition, it is stated that their conditions of
service was greatly modified, nay changed, by virtue of
notification, dated 31 July, 2019. Subsequently, in the year
2021, the State Government decided to man data centres in
various government departments of the State of Bihar through
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
58/62
outsourcing. Outsourcing in government departments is
legally permissible, but it is crucial to ensure compliance with
Labour Laws and regulations. Government departments can
outsource tasks and services, but they must ensure that the
outsourced employees are treated fairly and their rights are
protected.
56. In a very recent decision, in the case of
Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar & Anr. v. Monika & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 10800 of
2024), decided on 29th of November, 2024, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue as to whether an
outsourced employee is entitled to get weightage for regular
employment in the University, held that outsourcing policy
stipulates that the services may be outsourced as and when
required partly or completely by the departments, where posts
have not been sanctioned, on contract basis.
57. In the case of Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in paragraph no. 14, held as hereunder:-
“14. The abrupt termination of the appellants’
services, following dismissal of their Original
Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary
and devoid of any justification. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
59/62termination letters, issued without prior notice
or explanation, violated fundamental
principles of natural justice. It is a settled
principle of law that even contractual
employees are entitled to a fair hearing before
any adverse action is taken against them,
particularly when their service records are
unblemished. In this case, the appellants were
given no opportunity to be heard, nor were
they provided any reasons for their dismissal,
which followed nearly two decades of
dedicated service.”
58. Undoubtedly, the State Government is entitled
to take policy decision that the Data Entry Operators would be
deputed by the Government Departments through a service
provider under outsourcing policy.
59. However, the said policy decision cannot be
made effective retrospectively, directing the contractual
employees, who were discharging the similar duties for a long
period of time, to submit themselves to a selection process to
be conducted by BELTRON with fresh applicants, without
terminating their job on the ground of efficiency. Therefore,
subsequent decision of outsourcing of service providers in
data centres under various departments of the State
Government through Mrs Urmila International Services Pvt.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
60/62
Ltd., is not applicable in case of the petitioners.
60. Last, but not the least, law on this issue is
absolutely clear that a contractual employee, working under
the functionary of the State can challenge the executive
instruction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
when his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21
are violated.
61. In the instant case, petitioners are treated
differently from their fellow Executive Assistants, working in
the district of Ara and Araria.
62. This issue has not been decided in any of the
writ petitions disposed of by different Benches of this Court in
the light of the executive decisions taken time to time by the
BPSM under the General Administration Department.
63. For the reasons stated above, I find that the
instant writ petition is maintainable and the petitioners are
entitled to the following reliefs:
A. Memo No. 1416, dated 23rd December, 2021,
issued under the signature of the District Magistrate Purnea,
by which the list of the petitioners has been submitted to the
BELTRON for taking appropriate action is quashed and set
aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
61/62B. it is declared that the petitioners are entitled to
perform their duties as Executive Assistants on the basis of
notification, contained in Memo No. 436, dated 26 th February,
2019 till the attainment of 60 years of age or till the end of the
scheme, whichever is earlier.
C. The District Magistrate, Purnea is directed to
place the service of the petitioners in the vacant posts of
Executive Assistants, if any, in any of the Data Centres, run by
various Departments of the State Government within a period
of four weeks from the date of this order. If no such vacancy
is available, the petitioners may be posted in the Data Centres
of other districts in the State of Bihar.
D. The petitioners, however, are not entitled to
receive back-wages/salary from the month of August, 2021 as
they did not render any service in any of the Department of
the State Government.
64. With the above order, the instant writ petition is
allowed on contest.
65. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
Patna High Court CWJC No.8991 of 2022 dt.07-05-2025
62/62
CAV DATE 08.04.2025
Uploading Date 07.05.2025
Transmission Date N/A
[ad_1]
Source link