Nagendra Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13221 of 2023
     ======================================================
     Nagendra Kumar Singh Son of Ramdeo Singh, Resident of Mohalla-
     Saristabad, Rajputana, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna, Bihar.
                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Art Culture and
     Youth Department, Govt. of Bihar.
2.   The Joint Secretary, Art Culture and Youth Department, Govt. of Bihar.
3.   The Director General, Bihar State Sports Authority, Patliputra Sports
     Complex, Kankarbagh, Patna - 800020.
4.   The Director cum Special Secretary, Student and Youth Welfare, Art Culture
     and Youth Department, Govt. of Bihar, 3rd Floor, Vikash Bhawan, New
     Secretariat, Patna - 800015.
5.    The Director cum Secretary, Bihar State Sports Authority, Patliputra Sports
      Complex, Kankarbagh, Patna - 800020.
                                                             ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s      :      Mr. Shashank Chandra, Adv.
     For the Respondent/s      :      Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh ( AAG 13 )
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT

      Date : 31-01-2026

                     The writ application has been filed for the following

     relief:-

                            “1. That this is an application praying for
                issuance of a Writ in the nature of a Writ of mandamus
                or    any   other   appropriate   Writ order,      direction
                commanding the Respondents, to forthwith:-
                            (i). To fix and to grant the retiral benefits
                (Pension, Gratuity, Group Insurance etc.) to the
                Petitioner in view of the fact that the Petitioner was
                regularized in service w.e.f. 01.07.1988 and has also
                been granted the benefits of service continuity, seniority
                and ACP/MACP from the said date, as such the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                           2/12




                Petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.1988 was made a regular
                government employee, which entitles the Petitioner to
                receive the aforesaid retiral benefits. Further even
                similarly situated employees, who although were
                initially appointed in Bihar State Sports Authority but
                subsequently their services were regularized under the
                Art. Culture & Youth Department, Govt. of Bihar and
                were posted at different places vide Memo No 427 dated
                23.10.2000 (Annexure P/3). However, the services of the
                Petitioner was regularised in the Art. Culture & Youth
                Department,      Govt.     of     Bihar   vide   Order   dated
                20.06.2000 issued by Respondent No.3 w.e.f. 01.07.1988
                and also in view of the fact that an employee of the
                authority namely, Nathu Ansari posted as a Driver, has
                been granted the benefits of pension, gratuity etc vide
                Order contained in Memo No. 568 dated 13.04.2023
                (Annexure -P/9).
                           (ii). To quash the part of the Order dated
                20.06.2000 (Annexure P/2 )issued by the Respondent
                No. 3 to the extent it does not grants the financial
                benefits, including the fixation of salary to the
                Petitioner, from the date of his appointment, rather the
                salary is being fixed from the date of regularization, as
                the same is discriminatory in view of the fact that the
                employees of the Sports Authority who have been
                regularized in the Department have been given financial
                benefit including fixation of salary, from the date of their
                initial appointment in the Sports Authority.
                           (iii) The Petitioner further prays for a
                consequential Writ of Mandamus commanding the
                Respondents to fix the salary of the Petitioner from the
                date of appointment i.e.. 01.07.1988 and not from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                           3/12




                dated of his regularization and also to grant all the
                financial benefits and to act strictly in accordance with
                law.”
                    2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the

       appointment of the petitioner was made in Bihar State Sports

       Authority on 26.02.1988 on temporary basis as a daily wager.

       However, even after lapse of almost 12 years of service, the

       petitioner’s service was not regularized and as such,                for

       regularizing the services and allowing regular pay-scale,

       representation was made before the authorities by the petitioner.

                    3. It is next submitted that the services of the petitioner

       as well as other similarly situated persons were not regularized and

       regular benefits were denied, which led to filing of the writ

       petition bearing CWJC No. 7361 of 1993 before this Court and,

       same was disposed of vide order dated 05.09.1997 with a direction

       to the State Government to get the rules of service condition of the

       employees of the Sports Authority approved, which was duly

       approved and the Department came out with a Notification no. 139

       dated 10.04.2000, governing the appointment as well other

       services conditions of the employees of the Sports Authority being

       known as Bihar State Sports Authority Appointment Rules, 2000.

                    4. It is next submitted that as per the Rules, so notified,

       the services of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                           4/12




       20.06.2000 with effect from 01.07.1988 and as per his seniority,

       the salary of the petitioner was fixed in the pay-scale of 4000-

       6000.

                    5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that since,

       the benefits under ACP has already been granted by treating him to

       be in service with effect from the date of absorption/adjustment

       dated 01.07.1988,therefore, the benefits of pension and pensionary

       benefit by treating the petitioner to be a government service has to

       be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment.

                    6. It is the case of the petitioner that after regularization,

       the services of the petitioner, in view of the resolution of the

       Finance Department as contained in Resolution No. 4685 dated

       25.06.2003 and 7566 dated 14.07.2010 issued by the Art Culture

       and Youth Department, the meeting of Departmental Screening

       Committee was called for and recommendation for grant of benefit

       of ACP/MACP was granted vide order as contained in letter no.

       61/2019 dated 25.07.2019 and from perusal of the said order, it

       would be crystal clear that by considering the date of

       regularization with effect from 01.07.1988 and the date of

       superannuation of this petitioner with effect from 30.05.2020, the

       petitioner is said to have been allowed the benefit of 1 st, 2nd and 3rd

       ACP/MACP.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                           5/12




                    7. Counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that

       since the previous period of the petitioner has already been

       recognized as a period rendered in the government service and

       similarly situated person in the case of Nathu Ansari Vs. The

       State of Bihar & Ors (L.P.A. No. 205 of 2016), wherein, the

       Hon’ble Division Bench had an occasion to consider Clause 15 of

       the Notification dated 10.04.2000, in which, it was held that the

       right which has accrued to the employees by virtue of their

       absorption, as a government servant, is required to be protected

       and accordingly, appropriate directions have been issued to the

       respondent authority to grant all such benefits to the employees of

       the authority, in whose favour the absorption has been directed by

       treating them to be a government employee with effect from the

       date of absorption.

                    8. It is further submitted that the date of absorption with

       effect from 01.07.1988, which is said to have been notified by

       issuing a specific order as contained in Annexure-14 being, Memo

       No. 247 dated 20.06.2000, the petitioner becomes entitled to all

       such benefits accruing to him by virtue of the notification dated

       20.06.2000 and there may not be any reason before the authorities

       in not allowing such benefits to the petitioner by treating him to be

       a government employee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                           6/12




                    9. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the judgment

       rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil

       Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 4955 of 2022)

       submits that the said writ petitioner being similar to the present

       petitioner, who was also adjusted and regularized in the authority

       w.e.f. 26.03.1987 as against the sanctioned post vide office order

       no. 26 dated 03.05.1997, in whose favour, by relying upon the

       judgment rendered by Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of

       Nathu Ansari (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench has directed the

       respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner of the aforesaid

       writ petition, the case of this petitioner is also required to be

       considered in similar terms by giving similar treatment and to pay

       consequential benefits including the retirement benefits at par with

       the case of Anil Kumar (supra).

                    10. On the other hand, counsel for the State, by referring

       to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, submits that the

       petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager and, after

       framing of Service Rules for the employees of the Sports

       Authority, his service was regularized, which is much after the

       absorption orders were issued in the case of Nathu Ansari and

       Anil Kumar (supra), while the order of regularization in respect of

       the petitioner, only came to be issued in the year 2000, when the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                           7/12




       Sports Authority had already notified its Service Rules being

       known as Bihar State Sports Authority Appointment Rules, 2000,

       which had already come into effect and, therefore, his case is not

       similar to that of Nathu Ansari and Anil Kumar (supra).

                    11. It is next submitted that after the directions have

       been issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench and, as also, the Co-

       ordinate Bench of this Court, the authorities of the Sports

       Department have already taken a decision by passing necessary

       orders, which is appended with the rejoinder to the supplementary

       counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2,

       which is contained in Memo No. 88 & 89 dated 03.06.2025 by

       which the benefits of regularization by treating them to be a

       government employee has been passed and benefits have also been

       extended.

                    12. It is next contended that by referring to the order, the

       rule governing the service condition of the employees, known as

       Bihar State Sports Authority Rule, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as

       ‘the Rule, 2000’) wherein, the Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rule, 2000

       clearly stipulates that benefit of pension and gratuity will not be

       admissible to the employees of the Authority, but they will be

       covered by the Contributory Provident Fund and Group Insurance

       Scheme with the approval of the State Government. With regard to
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                           8/12




       benefit of MACP, it is submitted that the authority have already

       granted the benefit of ACP/MACP as admissible to the petitioner.

                    13. After considering the submission of the respective

       parties, this Court finds that the issues at hand being identical to

       the present one, appears to have been adjudicated in the case of

       Nathu Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (L.P.A. No. 205 of

       2016) in which the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its

       penultimate paragraph has held as follows:

                        “Accordingly, we are of the considered view that by

                applying the provisions of Clause-15 of the notification

                dated 10th of April, 2000 the rights that had accrued to the

                petitioner by virtue of his being absorbed as a Government

                Servant on 3rd of May, 1997 cannot be taken away. That

                apart, when all these factors were considered by us while

                hearing the matter on 12th of July, 2017 and when the

                notification Annexure-A dated 10th of April, 2000 were

                brought to our notice, we directed the petitioner to indicate

                as to whether he has availed all the benefits accruing to him

                by virtue of this notification dated 10th of April, 2000 and at

                that point of time, we were of the considered view that prima

                facie the petitioner cannot take the benefits of both the

                conditions of absorption and the notification dated 10th of

                April, 2000. In pursuance to the order passed on 12th of

                July, 2017 the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                           9/12




                and in para 12 of the said supplementary affidavit specific

                averments have been made by the petitioner to say that none

                of the benefits accruing to an employee by virtue of a

                Government notification dated 10th of April, 2000 was made

                available to the petitioner nor he has availed any of such

                benefits. To this supplementary affidavit, State Government

                has also filed supplementary counter affidavit on 25th of

                August, 2017 and there is nothing in this affidavit to show

                that the petitioner was granting the benefits by virtue of the

                notification dated 10th of April, 2000. Therefore, it is a case

                where treating the petitioner to be a Government Employee

                having been absorbed on 3rd of May, 1997 even the benefit

                accruing to him by virtue of the notification dated

                10.04.2000 was not accorded to him and therefore, there is

                no reason as to why the petition should not be allowed and

                the petitioner be granted all the benefits to which he is

                entitled to treating him to be a Government Employee.

                        Accordingly, we allow the petition, quash the order

                passed by the leaned Writ Court and direct the respondents

                to treat the petitioner to be a Government Employee and

                grant him all the benefits accruing to a Government

                Employee by virtue of his absorption on 3rd of May, 1997.”

                    14. This Court has also been apprised that against the

       order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court, the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                          10/12




       has preferred SLP (Civil) No. 30713 of 2018, which also came to

       be dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2019. The State of Bihar and

       the other official respondents also filed Civil Review No. 25 of

       2020, that also resulted with the same fate vide order dated

       14.03.2023.

                    15. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State

       does not whisper or refute the contention of the petitioner that the

       claim of the petitioner is not similar and identical to the case of

       Nathu Ansari (supra), who has been allowed all the retiral

       benefits, including the death-cum-retiral gratuity. The issue with

       respect to the identically situated person has already been settled

       by the learned Division Bench of this Court; duly affirmed by the

       Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the submission of the State

       counsel that the ratio of Nathu Ansari (supra), may not be

       applicable in the case of the petitioner because the regularization

       of the petitioner was done after the Service Rule, 2000 but, while

       making such submission, the State counsel did not take the fact

       into consideration that only by considering his past service, the

       benefits under ACP/MACP was granted.

                    16. Taking into account the submissions made by the

       learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the

       judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench, as also by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                          11/12




       Co-ordinate Bench, and upon having given anxious consideration,

       by looking to the factual aspect and as also the materials available

       on record, the stand of the State is not accepted for the simple

       reason that the issue which is being raised before this Court, has

       already been considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case

       of Nathu Ansari (supra), whereby, the benefits of absorption has

       been recognized, and accordingly, this Court holds that the benefit

       of absorption from its effective date of 01.07.1988, cannot be

       taken away from the petitioner, as the service from the date of

       initial appointment has also been recognized by them for granting

       benefits of ACP and MACP. From the records, it also appears that

       the order passed by the learned Division Bench was also tested

       against which the State has preferred SLP (Civil) No. 30713 of

       2018, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated

       26.04.2019 and further Civil Review No. 25 of 2020, which was

       preferred by the State Government, has also met with the same fate

       vide order dated 14.03.2023.

                    17. Since the issues, which are required to be looked

       into for adjudicating the claim of the petitioner, has already been

       put at rest at the level of Hon’ble Apex Court and, as such, this

       Court has no reason to take a divergent view but, to direct

       consideration of his case in similar terms and, accordingly, this
             Patna High Court CWJC No.13221 of 2023 dt.31-01-2026
                                                       12/12




                    Court directs that the petitioner’s case be also considered in terms

                    of Clause 4(C) of Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, as his case is

                    also covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench rendered

                    in the case of Nathu Ansari (supra), which has attained finality

                    and, accordingly, the respondents are directed to proceed to

                    adjudicate the claim and pay all the consequential benefits at par

                    with the similarly situated persons, referred above, by passing a

                    reasoned and a speaking order, within a period of twelve weeks

                    from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

                                 18. With the aforementioned observations and direction,

                    the writ petition stands disposed of.


                                                                        (Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          10.02.2026
Transmission Date       N/A