Patna High Court
Mohammadin Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 18 August, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.91 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1046 of 2021
======================================================
1(a) Jaitun Nesha, Widow of Late Mohammadin Ansari @ Muhmmddin Ansari,
Resident of Village - Mukundpur, P.S. - Taraiya Sujan, District- Kushi Nagar
at present residing in the house of Md. Alique Ahmad at Maula Nagar, P.S. -
Belsand, District- Sitamarhi.
1(b) Afjal Ansari, Son of late Mohammadin Ansari @ Muhmmddin Ansari,
Resident of Village - Mukundpur, P.S. - Taraiya Sujan, District- Kushi Nagar
at present residing in the house of Md. Alique Ahmad at Maula Nagar, P.S. -
Belsand, District- Sitamarhi.
1(c) Kutubuddin Ansari, Son of Late Mohammadin Ansari @ Mohmmddin
Ansari, Resident of Village - Mukundpur, P.S. - Taraiya Sujan, District-
Kushi Nagar at present residing in the house of Md. Alique Ahmad at Maula
Nagar, P.S. - Belsand, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, R.E.O- II, Road Construction (work) Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Muzaffarpur, District -
Muzaffarpur.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division,
Sheohar, District - Sheohar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 18-08-2025
The present intra court appeal has been filed against
the judgment dated 17.01.2022, passed by the learned Single
Patna High Court L.P.A No.91 of 2022 dt.18-08-2025
2/8
Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 1046 of 2021, whereby the
writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the
appellant/petitioner to file a representation before the concerned
authority.
2. As per the facts on record, the Appellant, retired
from the post of Road Mate-cum-Chowkidar under the Works
Division, Sheohar. He initially joined as a daily wager in the
year 1981, removed on retrenchment, but he was re-engaged in
December 1984, and thereafter continuously worked from
March, 1985. Despite repeated representations, his services
were never regularised, although similarly placed employees
were regularised in the year 1986. He continued to render his
services, but no order of regularisation issued in his favour. The
appellant/petitioner moved to this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.
4103/1993, wherein he was held entitled to minimum pay scale
benefits. Subsequently, the Establishment Committee decided to
regularise him in the year 1996, but his absorption was made
only in work-charge establishment and it was cancelled in the
year 2000, reverting him as a daily wager. This led to another
round of litigation by the appellant in CWJC No. 3211/2004
which was allowed vide order dated 25.05.2006. The State
assailed the order of the writ court to the Hon'ble Supreme
Patna High Court L.P.A No.91 of 2022 dt.18-08-2025
3/8
Court, and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant, however,
continued only as work-charge staff till the date of his
retirement.
3. The appellant again filed a writ petition vide CWJC
No. 7777/2013, whereby the Hon'ble Court issued a direction to
consider the case of his regularisation. The departmental
authorities, however, rejected his claim vide memo dated
28.02.2017
, which was later contested in a contempt proceeding
and a liberty was given by the Hon’ble Court to seek further
relief. The appellant retired on 31.12.2013, and no retirement
benefits have been granted to the Appellant.
4. The writ-petitioner, Mohammadin Ansari @
Muhammddin Ansari had preferred the writ petition (CWJC No.
1046 of 2021) for the following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing and commanding the
respondent to treat the services of the petitioner
as a regular employee under the State
Government in the light of judgment of this
Hon’ble Court passed in the case of Pawan
Kumar Srivastava and others as reported in
2011(2) B.L.J. 345 as also the Full Bench
Judgment of the Hon’ble Jharkhand Court
passed in the case of Ram Prasad Singh as
reported in 2005 JLJR 38 and thereby to pay
Patna High Court L.P.A No.91 of 2022 dt.18-08-2025
4/8the retiral benefits including pension, gratuity,
leave encashment and A.C.P. upon granting him
the benefit of regularisation after completion of
10 years’ service under work charge
establishment in the department.
(ii) For issuance of further writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the order contained in
Memo No. 96 dated 28.02.2017 issued under
the signature of Superintending Engineer,
Respondent No. 4, whereby and whereunder in
compliance to the order of this Hon’ble Court
dated 10.08.2016 passed in CWJC No. 7777 of
2013. The claim of the petitioner has been
rejected in a mechanical and arbitrary manner
ignoring the laws laid down into the case of
Pawan Kumar Srivastava reported in 2011 (2)
BLJ 345 as also Full Bench Judgment reported
in 2005 JLJR 38 upheld by Hon’ble Supreme
Court, copy if order dated 03.05.2007 passed in
CWJC 16060/2004 and legal claim of the
petitioner for regularization has been turned
down.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate declaration
and holding that once admittedly the petitioner
worked for more than 17 years in work charge
in regular pay scale with all revision of pay and
his work was perennial in nature, his service
was fit to be taken into regular establishment as
provided under P.W.D. code which has a force
Patna High Court L.P.A No.91 of 2022 dt.18-08-2025
5/8of law and accordingly he is fully entitled to
entire retiral benefits including Pension,
Gratuity, Leave Encashment, A.C.P. and other
admissible benefits which have not been paid
although petitioner has retired on 31.12.2013
and now the said retiral benefits are required to
be paid to the petitioner forthwith.
(iv) Issuance of a further writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing and commanding the
respondents to make payment of post-retirement
dues including Pension, Gratuity, Leave
Encashment in lieu of unutilised leave, A.C.P.
and other Post retiral benefits forth with along
with interest @ 18% per annum and penal
interest even in the light of decision of Full
Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of
Mobina Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar and
others as reported in 2019(2) BLJ 9.
(v) Any other relief or reliefs be granted to
petitioner to which he is found to be entitled
to.”
5. The learned Single Judge, after going through the
rival contention of parties and the documents available on
record, disposed of the writ petition with the following
observations:-
“Petitioner has not established legal or vested
statutory right followed by demand before the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.91 of 2022 dt.18-08-2025
6/8competent authority. In the light of Hon’ble
Apex Court decision in the case of Mani Subrat
Jain vs. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 1
SCC 486 the petitioner is not entitled to relief
sought in the present petition in the absence of
established legal/statutory right followed by
demand before the competent authority.”
6. The learned Single Judge had, however, granted
liberty to the writ-petitioner to make representation before the
competent authority with a direction to decide the representation
within a period of three months.
7. A work-charge employee is someone who is
appointed on a temporary basis. The Apex Court in Jaswant
Singh v. Union of India; 1979 4 SCC 440, has observed that
the work-charge employees are engaged on a temporary basis
and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified
work. Thus, they are temporary employees, and have no legal
right.
8. The Apex Court in Mani Subrat Jain v. State of
Haryana; (1977) 1 SCC 486 held that a person cannot approach
the court without an established legal right. The learned Single
Judge, while passing the impugned judgment, has relied upon
the said decision of the Apex Court. Such right is not established
by the appellants in the present case before the concerned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.91 of 2022 dt.18-08-2025
7/8
authorities, as observed by the learned Single Judge.
9. During the pendency of the present appeal, the writ-
petitioner died on 07.02.2025 and subsequently, a substitution
application was filed vide I.A. No. 01 of 2025. The said
substitution application was allowed vide order dated
05.05.2025, whereby the original appellant Mohammadin
Ansari @ Muhmmddin Ansari was substituted by his legal
heirs/representatives namely, Jaitun Nesha (Wife), and Afjal
Ansari & Kutubuddin Ansari (Sons).
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
submitted that the substituted appellants have confined their
prayer to the extent of payment of family pension only. Learned
counsel submits that the deceased-appellant is fully entitled to
retiral benefits even if his service is treated as work charge
employee, as has been held in the Full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Mobina Khatoon & Ors. Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors. reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 1015. However, the
appellants in the present case have not established their legal or
vested statutory right before the concerned authority, and as
such no relief can be given to them.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we do
Patna High Court L.P.A No.91 of 2022 dt.18-08-2025
8/8
not find any perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order
under appeal. However, the substituted appellants will be at
liberty to file representation before the Competent Authority
who shall consider the entitlement of family pension of the
deceased Mohammadin Ansari @ Muhmmddin Ansari and pass
an appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date
of filing of any such representation.
12. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the
present L.P.A. stands disposed of.
13. Interlocutory application, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
mcverma/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 25.08.2025 Transmission Date N/A