Patna High Court
Chandrika SinghversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed; the discharge order is not quashed.
Summary
Chandrika Singh, a daily‑wage tractor driver since 1979, sought regularisation of his service after a 1999 order directing payment of a higher pay scale. In 2012 the Chief Engineer rejected his regularisation claim, citing lack of advertisement, examination and authority, and relying on the Supreme Court decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. The petitioner was later served a discharge order dated 13‑01‑2017, effective 12‑02‑2017, and a notice of salary over‑payment recovery of Rs 1,88,144, of which Rs 24,088 remained recoverable. He filed a writ petition asking to quash the discharge order and to prevent further disturbance of his duties. The Patna High Court held that the 2012 rejection of regularisation, which had not been challenged, rendered the discharge order indefensible and dismissed the writ application, directing the petitioner to approach the Engineer‑in‑Chief for the recovery matter.
Issues considered
- Whether the discharge order dated 13‑01‑2017 can be quashed on the ground of prior rejection of regularisation.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of service despite the 2012 order.
- Whether the recovery of alleged excess salary is valid and what remedy is available.
Subjects
- regularisation of service
- daily wage employee
- discharge order
- salary recovery
- water resources department
- administrative law
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1873 of 2017
======================================================
Chandrika Singh Son of Sukhadeo Singh, resident of Village- Kothian, P.S.
Didarganj, District- Patna at present in the 4th Grade Service in Saran Nahar
Pramandal, Gandak Yojana Marhaura under the respondent No. 7, Executive
Engineer, Siwan, Water Resources, P.S. and District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan,
Patna- 1.
3. The Addl. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar,
Sinchai Bhawan, Patna-1.
4. The Engineer-in-chief North Bihar, Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna-1.
5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar,
Sinchai Bhawan, Patna-1.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Saran Nahar
Pramandal, Siwan, P.S. and District- Siwan.
7. The Executive Engineer, Saran Nahar Pramandal, Siwan, Water Resources
Department, P.S. and District – Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to GA- 2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs:
“1. i. for issuance of
appropriate writ for quashing of the
letter dated 13.01.2017 issued under
Patna High Court CWJC No.1873 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
2/5
the signature of Executive Engineer,
Saran Nahar Pramandal Maharajganj
vide letter No. 28 to the petitioner
whereby the petitioner has been
ordered to discharge from the
engagement as tractor driver from
12.02.2017 i.e. one month after the
issuance of this letter dated
13.01.2017.
ii. for giving a direction
to the authority not to disturb the
petitioner from discharging his duty.
iii. for other relief/reliefs
for which the petitioner is entitled for.”
3. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be stated
here that as per the petitioner’s case, he was appointed initially
in the year 1979 as a daily wage tractor driver in Punpun Flood
Protection Division, Anishabad. The petitioner moved this Court
in C.W.J.C. no. 4909 of 1996 which case along with others came
to be disposed off by order dated 12.1.1999 directing the State
Government and other respondents to pay the salary in the scale
of pay admissible to Class-IV posts.
4. It further transpires from the records of the case
that the case of the petitioner and few others came to be
considered for their regularization of service. The respondents
passed an order contained in Memo no. 1218 dated 16.4.2012
Patna High Court CWJC No.1873 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
3/5
under the signature of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources
Department, Siwan. Taking note of the facts that no
advertisement was issued at the time of the petitioner’s
appointment, no list was obtained from the employment
exchange nor any examination was conducted, the Chief
Engineer rejected the case of the petitioner for regularization of
their service on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka
and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors; (2006) 4 SCC 1. It further
transpires from the order dated 16.4.2012 that the Chief
Engineer also took into consideration the facts that the petitioner
had not been able to produce any evidence to the effect that their
appointment had been made against sanctioned vacant post and
the appointment had taken place as per the procedure
established in law. The respondents had not been able to show
that the appointing authority had the powers to appoint at the
relevant time and in fact the petitioner and others had been
working on daily wages.
5. It is not in dispute that the order dated 16.4.2012
giving detailed reasons and rejecting the case of the petitioner
for regularization of their service was not challenged in any
Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1873 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
4/5
6. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that even thereafter, the respondents continue
to take work from the petitioner and to pay him salary as a daily
wage tractor driver. However, the petitioner was surprised to
receive a letter no. 86 dated 14.2.2017, brought on record as
annexure to I.A. no. 1607 of 2017 wherein it was ordered that a
sum of Rs. 1,88,144/- had been paid in excess to the petitioner
and after adjustment of Rs. 1,62,056/-, a sum of Rs. 24,088/-
still remained recoverable.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on records, so far as challenge in
the writ application to the order of discharge from engagement
as tractor driver from 12.2.2017 is concerned, in the opinion of
the Court, the case of the petitioner for regularization having
already been rejected vide order dated 16.4.2012 and the same
having remained unchallenged, the Court finds no merit in the
instant application and the same is dismissed.
8. So far as challenge to the order/communication
dated 14.2.2017 ordering recovery of further amount of Rs.
24,088/- as also the total amount of Rs. 1,88,144/- is concerned,
the petitioner may file a representation before the Engineer in
Chief (North Bihar), Water Resources Department, Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.1873 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
5/5
of Bihar (respondent no. 4) within a period of four weeks.
9. In case, such a representation is filed along with
supporting documents, the same shall be decided by the
respondent concerned within a period of two months from the
date of its filing and the order passed therein shall be
communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
10. The writ application stands disposed off with
the above observations and direction.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.1.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…