Patna High Court
Rajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The application is dismissed as it is barred by delay and laches.
Summary
The petitioner, a peon appointed on daily wages in 1983, sought regularisation of his service and placement in the Old Pension Scheme, claiming back wages from 2001‑2002 and 2004‑2017. Earlier orders directed him to file a representation for regularisation, which was eventually effected on 27‑Nov‑2017, but with effect from that date rather than the pre‑1‑Sept‑2005 cut‑off for the Old Pension Scheme. The petitioner filed the present writ in 2025 alleging delay in implementing the earlier orders and seeking inclusion in the Old Pension Scheme and payment of arrears. The respondents contended that his service was never continuous, he was removed in 2010, and there was no vacant post to justify regularisation or Old Scheme benefits. The court found no rebuttal to the respondents' affidavit, noted the eight‑year delay since regularisation, and held that the petition was barred by delay and laches, dismissing the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be placed under the Old Pension Scheme despite regularisation after the 1‑Sept‑2005 cut‑off date.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages/remuneration for the periods claimed.
- Whether the writ application is barred by delay and laches.
Subjects
- pension scheme
- regularisation of service
- back wages
- delay
- laches
- writ jurisdiction
- old pension scheme
- new contributory pension scheme
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.268 of 2025
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar son of Suryavali Singh, resident of Town Lakhisarai, Ward
No.- 30, P.S. and District- Lakhisarai, presently working as Peon Department
of Building Construction, Sub Division- 2, Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Building
Construction, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Building Construction, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Engineer in Chief cum Additional Commissioner, Department of
Building Construction, Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Chief Engineer, Department of Building Construction, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Department of Building Construction,
Bhagalpur Circle, Bhagalpur.
8. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura.
9. The Executive Engineer, Department of Building Construction, Munger
Division, Munger.
10. The Executive Engineer, Department of Building Construction Lakhisarai
Division, Lakhisarai.
11. The Executive Engineer, Department of Building Construction Sheikhpura
Division, Sheikhpura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravish Chandra, AC to SC-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief (s) :-
“1. (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ /
writs commanding / directing the Respondents to
Patna High Court CWJC No.268 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
2/5
put the services of the petitioner is old pension
Scheme instead of New Contributory Pension
Scheme on he is not a new appointee after
01.09.2005 in the Services of the State
Government in pursuance to Government
Resolution under Memo No. 1206 dated
26.11.2023 as contained in Annexure P/11.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ / writs
commanding / directing the Respondents to pay
the back due wages/ remuneration of the
petitioner from December, 2001 to February
2002 and from March 2004 to the date of his
regularization of service i.e. 27.11.2017;
(iii) For issuance of any other relief/ reliefs for
which the petitioner is found entitled to under
law as well as under facts:
And/or
Pass such other order/ orders, direction
/directions which your Lordships may deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that having
been appointed on daily wage in the year 1983, the petitioner
moved this Court for regularization of his services in CWJC
no.8607 of 1999, which was disposed of vide order dated
27.11.2004 directing the petitioner to file a representation before
the Engineer in Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner, Department
of Building Construction, Government of Bihar. It was further
observed that in case the same is filed, the grievances of the
petitioner shall be considered by the respondent concerned and
necessary orders shall be passed for regularization of the
services.
Patna High Court CWJC No.268 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
3/5
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
filed a representation, as directed by order dated 27.11.2004 and
no action having been taken by the respondent authorities, he
moved this Court in contempt application being M.J.C no.2734
of 2006. Referring to the order dated 13.8.2009 passed in M.J.C
no.2734 of 2006, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the contempt application was dismissed. Further from the said
order, it would transpire that the services of four of the six
petitioners therein were regularized while observing that there
were four more vacancies and that the case of the petitioner
would be considered against the same, the contempt application
was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that once again the respondents not having taken any steps for
regularization of the service of the petitioner, the petitioner
moved this Court in CWJC no.6337 of 2014. This Court was
pleased to dispose of the said writ application by its order dated
15.3.2016 observing that if there is a post vacant and available,
then the claim of the petitioner will be considered favourably or
else the decision would be made known to him clearly within
the time fixed. It is further submitted that once again the
directions of this Court not having been carried out, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.268 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
4/5
petitioner moved in a contempt application (MJC no.3072 of
2016), however during pendency of the said writ application, by
order bearing no.26 dated 27.11.2017 contained in Memo
no.795 dated 27.11.2017 issued under the signature of the
Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department,
Building Circle, Munger, the service of the petitioner was
regularized.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
service of the petitioner has been regularized by the said order
dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P/9) with effect from the date of
passing of the order instead of a date prior to 1.9.2005 as had
been done in the case of others similarly situated. As such the
instant writ application has been filed for issuance of a direction
to the respondents to put the service of the petitioner in the Old
Pension Scheme instead of the New Contributory Pension
Scheme for which the cut-off date is 1.9.2005.
7. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, who in reference to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents-Building
Construction Department submits that the service of the
petitioner was not regularized earlier as no roster was available
for the petitioner’s appointment and his services were not
Patna High Court CWJC No.268 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
5/5
continuous, the petitioner having been removed by order dated
8.6.2010 by the Executive Engineer, Building Division,
Sheikhpura. It is further categorical case of the respondents that
the petitioner was not working against a vacant sanctioned posts
and as such there is no question of the petitioner’s regularization
or his being placed under the Old Pension Scheme, cut-off date
for which is 1.9.2025.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on record, in addition to the fact
that the statements made in the counter affidavit on behalf of the
respondents have not been contradicted by the petitioner by
filing any rejoinder, this Court finds that against the order of
regularization of the petitioner dated 27.11.2017, the instant writ
application for the reliefs prayed for, as stated herein above, has
been preferred by the petitioner after 8 years in the year 2025.
Thus the application is fit to be rejected on the ground of delay
and laches.
9. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…