Patna High Court
Udeshwari YadavversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner, being a daily‑wage employee, is not entitled to pension under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, as affirmed in Ram Ekbal Mahto.
Summary
Udeshwari Yadav filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar to calculate his service period from 1975 and to sanction retirement dues and pension. The respondents argued that the issue had already been decided in Ram Ekbal Mahto v. State of Bihar, where the court held that a daily‑wage employee’s service is not pensionable under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The bench examined the earlier judgment and the applicable law, noting that the petitioner’s appointment and the Finance Department resolution placed him under the new pension scheme, but his prior daily‑wage service could not be counted as qualifying service. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, following the precedent. All interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension and retirement benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
- Whether service rendered as a daily‑wage employee from 1975 qualifies as pensionable service.
- Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to calculate service period and sanction dues.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- pension
- daily‑wage employee
- Bihar Pension Rules
- service period
- civil writ jurisdiction
- petition dismissed
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17628 of 2014
======================================================
Udeshwari Yadav, son of Late Shukdeo Yadav, resident of village Manikchak,
P.S. Banka, District Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Additional Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna
4. The Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Barrak No.-2, Harding Road,
Patna, Bihar.
6. District Magistrate, Banka.
7. Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Banka-2.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following relief(s):
“i. Issuance of a writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondents to calculate the service
period from 1975 and after that to
sanction all the retiral dues alongwith
pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
ii. Issuance of any other
appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s)
as may be deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.17628 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
2/4
2. At the very outset, the Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submits that the issue involved in the present writ
petition is no longer res integra. It is contended
that the issue stands squarely covered by the
order dated 09.07.2021 passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 86 of 2019
(Ram Ekbal Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors.), wherein an identical issue was considered
and adjudicated. The Learned counsel, therefore,
submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment, the
present writ petition may also be disposed of, in
terms of the order dated 09.07.2021.
3. In Ram Ekbal Mahto (supra) this
Court has held as follows:
“I have heard the learned
counsel for the parties and gone through
the materials on record. Considering the
fact that as per the appointment letter of
the petitioner dated 12.09.2009 as also
according to the resolution of the Finance
Department dated 31.08.2005, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17628 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
3/4
provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules,
1950 are not applicable to the petitioner
and the petitioner is amenable to the new
pension scheme, 2005, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner inasmuch as
firstly, his services are not pensionable
and secondly, his past services rendered
as a daily wage employee cannot be
counted as a qualifying period for the
purposes of grant of pension in view of
the law laid down by the learned Full
Bench of this Court in the case of
Bhagwan Singh (supra) wherein it has
been held that the service rendered by a
daily wage employee is not a pensionable
service and does not qualify for pension.
6. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case and for the
reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not
find any merit in the present writ petition,
hence, the same stands dismissed”
Patna High Court CWJC No.17628 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
4/4
4. Having regard to the submissions
made by the parties, the present writ petition
stands dismissed in terms of the aforesaid order
passed in Ram Ekbal Mahto (supra).
5. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…