Patna High Court

Chandra Kishor GuptaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 5 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ALOK KUMAR SINHA

Holding

The Court held that the impugned order withholding approval of the petitioners’ appointment because the post is promotional is legally untenable and quashed it, while granting salary arrears with interest but refusing retrospective regularisation from the original dates of engagement.

Summary

The petitioners, long‑serving daily‑wage employees of B.N. Mandal University, were appointed as Upper Division Clerks in 2017 following a court‑monitored selection process and later had their appointment approval withdrawn in 2025 on the ground that the post was promotional. They sought quashing of the withdrawal order, regularisation with retrospective effect, payment of salary arrears from June 2023 and interest. The High Court examined whether the impugned order was lawful, whether the State was estopped by its earlier participation in the selection, and the applicability of doctrines such as promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and approbation‑reprobation. It held that the withdrawal was arbitrary, the State could not later deny approval after having approved the process, and the reliance on earlier memos was unsustainable. Accordingly, the Court quashed the 13‑Feb‑2025 order, directed payment of current salary and arrears with interest, but declined retrospective regularisation from the original dates of engagement. The petition was allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Issues considered

Whether the impugned order withholding approval of the petitioners’ appointment on the ground that the post is promotional is legally sustainable.
Whether the respondents are precluded from denying approval of the appointments by the doctrines of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and approbation‑reprobation.
Whether reliance on Memo No. 494 (12‑Apr‑2021), Memo No. 1689 (29‑Nov‑2024) and the impugned order of 13‑Feb‑2025 can be sustained in view of the earlier judgment of 20‑Oct‑2022.
Whether the petitioners’ case is identical to that of Rajeshwar Roy and can be decided on the same basis.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to current salary and arrears from June 2023 irrespective of the pending approval of their appointment.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to retrospective approval of their appointment and notional service benefits from their initial dates of engagement in 1992 and 1995.

Subjects

service regularisation
promotional post
direct recruitment
promissory estoppel
legitimate expectation
appointment approval
salary arrears
public employment
constitutional law
natural justice

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7250 of 2025
======================================================
1. Chandra Kishor Gupta son of Bhim Prasad Gupta, resident of Near Sader
Hospital, Ward No. 13, Main Road, P.O. and P.S. and District- Madhepura,
52113
2. Rajesh Kumar, S/o- Krishna Kumar, resident of B.N. Mandal University,
Ward No. 01, P.O. and P.S. and District Madhepura, 852113.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resource Development, Higher
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.
6. The B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura, through its Registrar.
7. The Vice Chancellor, B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura.
8. The Registrar, B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
Mr.Shashwat Srivastava, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel (23)
Mr.Sudhir Kumar Singh, AC to SC-23
For BNMU : Mr.Md.Nadim Seraj, Adv.
Mr.Shahbaj Alam, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 05-05-2026

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application has

prayed for following reliefs:

“A. For the issuance of an appropriate
writ or writs, order, or orders, in the nature of
Certiorari, to quash the office order contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
2/50

Memo No. 14/MU/13-266/2021-175 dated
13.02.2025, relating to the petitioners issued by
Respondent No. 5. i.e., The Deputy Secretary,
Education Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby
approval for the appointment of the Petitioners to
the post of Upper Divisional Clerk (U.D.C.) at B.
N. Mandal University, Madhepura, has been
withheld on the grounds that direct appointments
to the post through promotion are not valid.
B. For issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of mandamus for commanding/directing
the respondents to grant approval of the
appointment/service of the petitioners w.e.f.
22.06.1992, 14.01.1995.
C. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs/order/orders, in the nature of
Mandamus, for granting notional benefit to the
petitioners who rendered their services with full
devotion and dedication in the university and were
initially appointed as daily wagers
(typist/assistant) and rendered their services from
22.06.1992, 14.01.1995 respectively till now, and
presently, they are working as a U.D.C. (Upper
Divisional Clerk) in B. N. Mandal University,
Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as "the
University") in view of their regular appointment.
D. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs/order/orders, in the nature of
Mandamus, for granting the current salary along
with the arrear of the salary to the petitioners,
which is due since June 2023.
E. For the issuance of an appropriate
writ or writs, order or orders, in the nature of
Mandamus, directing the concerned respondent
authorities to take necessary actions for the
payment of interest on the arrears of salary that
may be deemed admissible in favor of the
Petitioners, due to the unlawful and arbitrary non-
payment of their salaries in accordance with their
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
3/50

entitlements since June 2023.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

present writ application has been filed challenging the legality

and validity of the impugned order dated 13.02.2025

(Annexure–P/32), whereby the respondent authorities have

declined to approve the appointment of the petitioners to the

post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and have withheld their

salary. It is contended that the impugned action is arbitrary,

unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the

Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the

principles of natural justice and the consistent stand earlier

taken by the respondents themselves.

4. Learned counsel further submits that B.N. Mandal

University, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as “the

University”) was established on 10.01.1992 under the

provisions of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act,

1992, upon bifurcation from L.N. Mithila University,

Darbhanga, and was vested with territorial jurisdiction over

several districts including Madhepura, Saharsa, Purnea, Katihar,

Kishanganj, Araria and Supaul. It is submitted that at the time

of establishment, adequate posts were not created by the State

Government, resulting in engagement of a large number of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
4/50

employees on daily wage or ad hoc basis for ensuring smooth

functioning of the University.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that they were

initially appointed as daily wagers (typist/assistant) in the

University, Petitioner No. 1 vide Letter No. 2924 dated

29.06.1992 and Petitioner No. 2 vide Letter No. 336/95 dated

23.01.1995 (Annexure–P/1 series), and since then they have

continuously discharged their duties without any adverse

remarks. Learned counsel submits that the University made

efforts for regularization of such employees and forwarded a

proposal to the State Government vide letter dated 04.07.2004

(Annexure–P/2 series), followed by further correspondence

including letter dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure–P/3), but no

decision was taken by the State.

It is further submitted that in pursuance of

proceedings before this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.

17329/2012, the State Government issued letter dated

02.12.2014 (Annexure–P/6), creating 68 posts of officers and

non-teaching staff for the University. The said decision was in

consonance with Notification dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure–

P/4), which provides that where sufficient eligible candidates

are not available for promotion, such posts may be transferred
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
5/50

to direct recruitment quota. Learned counsel submits that

thereafter, Advertisement No. BNMU 03/2015 dated

16.06.2015 (Annexure–P/9) was issued for filling up the

sanctioned posts.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that certain disputes arose leading to filing of CWJC

No. 14196/2015, wherein this Hon’ble Court, by order dated

01.12.2016 (Annexure–P/14), directed the authorities to

complete the deliberation and take necessary decisions within

the time-frame indicated in the said order dated 01/12/2016

concerning the matter of completion of the process of selection

for the appointment of persons, inter alia, against Class-III/IV

posts under the University. In compliance thereof, the

petitioners participated in the selection process and were

ultimately appointed as UDC vide notification dated 17.11.2017

(Annexure–P/17), followed by a corrigendum dated 29.11.2017

(Annexure–P/18). The petitioners joined their duties on

18.11.2017 and continued to work diligently.

7. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter the

State Government, upon due consideration, granted approval to

the appointment of 44 non-teaching employees including the

petitioners vide letter dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure–P/23), and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
6/50

their pay was also fixed under the 7th Pay Revision vide

resolution dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure–P/22). It is contended

that the petitioners were regularly paid salary till May 2023 and

their appointments were never questioned during this period.

It is further submitted that the respondent authorities,

all of a sudden, withdrew the earlier approval vide letter dated

12.04.2021 (Annexure–P/26) and subsequently directed

stoppage of salary vide notification dated 17.06.2021

(Annexure–P/29), without affording any opportunity of hearing

to the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached

this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 12758/2021, which was

allowed vide order dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure–P/30),

directing the respondents to release salary within 10 days from

the receipt of the said order.

8. Learned counsel submits that despite the aforesaid

judicial directions, the respondent authorities of State

Government and University convened a meeting on 25.10.2024

and in the minutes of the said meeting, it was observed that

seven persons including the two petitioners were not validly

appointed on the post of UDC because the post of UDC was a

promotional post. However, in the same meeting, the

respondent-State Government also made the following
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
7/50

observations:

“fu.kZ; gqvk fd bl dk;Zokgh ds vkyksd esa fo'ofo|ky; mijksDr

44 dfeZ;ksa dh Js.kh@dSVsxjh @vgZrk ds ckjs esa iqu% vk'oLr gks rnuqlkj

fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&10¼6½ ds vkyksd esa fu;qfDr ds vuqeksnu

¼fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk] 35 ¼2½ gsrq jkT; ljdkj ls vuqjks/k dj

ldrk gSA”

From the above observation made by the State

Government, it was conveyed that the University upon once

again being satisfied could make a renewed request for

approval to the State Government for appointment of the

petitioners on the post of UDC. This minutes of the meeting

held on 25.10.2024 was communicated vide Memo dated

29.11.2024 (Annexure-P/31). From the perusal of the impugned

order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32), it transpires that in

terms of the aforesaid observation contained in Memo dated

19.11.2024 (Annexure-P/31), a renewed request for approval

was made to the State Government by the University vide letter

no. 003/25, dated 13.01.2025. But the same was rejected vide

impugned order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32) reiterating

the same ground that direct appointment to the post of UDC

through promotion was/is not valid.

It is vehemently argued that such a stand is wholly

untenable, inasmuch as at no stage—neither at the time of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
8/50

advertisement in 2015, nor at the time of appointment in 2017,

nor even at the time of approval in 2019—did the respondents

raise any objection regarding the nature of the post. It is further

submitted that the petitioners were appointed against duly

sanctioned vacant posts following a lawful selection process

conducted under the supervision of this Hon’ble Court, and in

absence of eligible candidates for promotion, the conversion of

posts to direct recruitment quota was permissible under

Notification dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure–P/4).

9. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned

action is in violation of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court

in earlier proceedings including CWJC No. 14196/2015 and

MJC No. 943/2017, as well as contrary to the undertakings

furnished by the respondents therein. It is further contended that

issuing memo no. 175 dated 13.02.2025 is highly arbitrary,

unreasonable, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

It is lastly submitted that the petitioners have

rendered long and continuous service since 1992 and 1995

respectively, and their case is covered by the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India (SLP

who have rendered long years of service in essential functions
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
9/50

should not be penalized. It is contended that the petitioners are

suffering grave prejudice due to stoppage of salary since June

2023 and non-consideration of their representations (Annexure–

P/33 series), and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent nos. 6 to 8 (University) submits that the claims

made by the petitioners are misconceived and are liable to be

rejected in view of the factual and legal position governing the

matter. It is submitted that the prayer of the petitioners seeking

payment of interest on alleged arrears of salary is wholly

untenable inasmuch as the very entitlement of the petitioners to

hold the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) is under serious

dispute and has not been approved by the competent authority

of the State Government.

11. Learned counsel further submits that the

petitioners were appointed pursuant to directions issued by this

Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 14196 of 2015 and MJC No. 943

of 2017. It is submitted that the State Government had earlier

sanctioned 68 posts of officers and non-teaching employees

vide Memo No. 1592 dated 02.12.2014, following which the

University issued an advertisement dated 16.06.2015 inviting
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
10/50

applications for appointment. However, this Hon’ble Court, by

order dated 19.09.2016 passed in CWJC No. 14196 of 2015,

stayed the said advertisement and directed the University as

well as the Education Department to deliberate upon the issue

and take a final decision, particularly keeping in view those

employees who had rendered long years of service to the

University.

It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid

directions, the Department of Education, Government of Bihar,

vide letter dated 16.08.2017 (Annexure–A), laid down the

modalities for selection, including grant of weightage to

candidates who had earlier served the University on daily wage

basis. In terms thereof, 30 marks were awarded as weightage to

such candidates, including the petitioners, in recognition of

their past service.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the appointments in question were fresh appointments made

pursuant to the aforesaid process and directions of this Hon’ble

Court, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim absorption or

regularisation from the date of their initial engagement as

casual or daily wage workers. It is contended that at the time of

their initial engagement, the petitioners were working against
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
11/50

unsanctioned posts, and only after sanction of posts by the State

Government on 02.12.2014 did the question of regular

appointment arise. Thus, the claim of the petitioners for

notional benefits from their initial date of engagement is wholly

unsustainable in law.

It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the

petitioners on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Uma Devi vs. State of Karnataka is misplaced, inasmuch as

the petitioners were admittedly engaged as casual workers

against unsanctioned posts and their case does not fall within

the exceptions carved out therein. On the contrary, it is

submitted that the State Government has acted strictly in

accordance with the constitutional scheme governing public

employment.

13. Learned counsel next submits that the core issue

pertains to the nature of the post of UDC. It is contended that as

per the applicable statutory provisions, including Sankalp No.

8826 dated 20.12.2000 and Notification dated 04.03.2014

(Annexure–B), the post of Upper Division Clerk is a

promotional post and is required to be filled through promotion

and not by way of direct recruitment. It is submitted that the

direct appointment of the petitioners to the said post is in clear
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
12/50

contravention of the aforesaid provisions, rendering their

appointment illegal. In view thereof, the Education Department

rightly withdrew its earlier approval vide letter dated

12.04.2021 (Annexure–B).

14. It is further submitted that a meeting was

convened on 25.10.2024 by the Education Department with the

Vice-Chancellor and other officials of the University, wherein

several objections were raised regarding the appointments made

by the University. So far as the present petitioners are

concerned, it was specifically observed that direct appointment

to a promotional post is impermissible and, therefore, such

appointments cannot be approved. It is submitted that the

proceedings of the said meeting have already been brought on

record by the petitioners as Annexure–P/31. Learned counsel

also submits that a subsequent meeting dated 10.01.2025 was

held with respect to certain other appointments, and appropriate

decisions were taken in continuation of earlier deliberations

(Annexure–C).

15. With regard to the claim of salary and arrears,

learned counsel submits that the same cannot be granted as a

matter of right in the absence of valid approval of appointment

by the State Government. It is further submitted that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
13/50

petitioners had remained on strike for approximately 45 days,

i.e., from 18.10.2023 to 30.11.2023, during which period they

neither discharged their duties nor allowed normal functioning

of the University, thereby paralysing its operations. In such

circumstances, the claim for salary for the said period, as well

as arrears, is not tenable. However, it is submitted that any such

claim may be examined in accordance with law only after the

issue of approval of their appointment is duly resolved by the

State Government.

16. Learned counsel finally submits that the

petitioners themselves have furnished an undertaking on

affidavit to the effect that they shall neither claim salary nor

raise any further claim until the pending contempt proceedings,

namely MJC No. 1834 of 2025, MJC No. 1627 of 2023, MJC

No. 378 of 2023 and MJC No. 295 of 2023, are decided by this

Hon’ble Court. In view of such undertaking, it is contended that

the present writ petition is premature and the reliefs sought for

are not maintainable at this stage.

17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent nos. 2 to 5 (State) by way of counter affidavit

submits that the present writ application is misconceived and

devoid of merit, and the same has been filed without
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
14/50

appreciating the factual and legal position governing the

appointments in question It is submitted that the approval

earlier granted in favour of 44 non-teaching employees,

including the present petitioners, had already been withdrawn

by the Department vide letter dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure–

P/26), and the said decision continues to hold the field. Learned

counsel submits that although the said withdrawal was

subjected to challenge in a batch of writ petitions, including the

leading case of CWJC No. 12758 of 2021, this Hon’ble Court,

by order dated 20.10.2022, did not interfere with the withdrawal

of approval and merely directed that salary be paid to those who

were actually discharging their duties. It is thus submitted that

the foundational issue regarding the validity of appointment

remains unaffected and unresolved in favour of the petitioners.

18. Learned counsel further submits that the present

controversy is no longer res integra, inasmuch as a similarly

situated person, namely Rajeshwar Roy, had approached this

Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 2434 of 2025 challenging the

departmental decision. This Hon’ble Court, by order dated

13.02.2025 (Annexure–A), directed the Vice-Chancellor to

examine the matter and submit a report. In compliance thereof,

the University, after due consideration, submitted a report dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
15/50

16.06.2025 (Annexure–B) concluding that the claim of the said

petitioner was devoid of substance, and the same was

subsequently rejected by the Department vide memo no. 215

dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure–C). It is submitted that the case of

the present petitioners stands on identical footing and is liable

to be governed by the same reasoning.

19. Learned counsel submits that the matter has a

long and chequered history, and a proper appreciation thereof is

essential. It is submitted that after the bifurcation of B.N.

Mandal University from L.N. Mithila University in the year

1992, there was no immediate creation of adequate posts at the

University headquarters. Though certain posts existed in

constituent colleges and postgraduate departments, as reflected

in Government communications issued from time to time, the

State Government had, at various stages, imposed restrictions

on fresh appointments, including vide memo dated 04.03.2011.

It was only pursuant to judicial directions in CWJC No. 17329

of 2012 that 68 posts of non-teaching employees were

sanctioned by the State Government vide order dated

02.12.2014.

It is further submitted that although the University

issued Advertisement No. BNMU-03/2015 dated 16.06.2015
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
16/50

pursuant to such sanction, the same was stayed by this Hon’ble

Court in CWJC No. 14196 of 2015, with a direction to the State

and the University to evolve a mechanism for dealing with

long-serving employees. In compliance thereof, detailed

guidelines were issued vide memo dated 29.11.2016, requiring

adherence to qualification, roster, weightage and age relaxation

while making appointments. The subsequent selection process

was thus required to be strictly in conformity with the said

directions.

20. Learned counsel, however, submits that serious

irregularities were committed by the University in the process

of appointment. It is contended that instead of confining itself

to the advertisement issued in 2015 for sanctioned posts, the

University improperly relied upon an earlier advertisement of

2009, which related to different establishments, namely

constituent colleges and postgraduate departments. This

resulted in a flawed and composite selection process wherein

candidates from distinct advertisements were considered

together, thereby vitiating the entire exercise.

It is further submitted that the University failed to

adhere to the mandatory requirement of preparing and applying

the reservation roster in accordance with law. Learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
17/50

submits that in respect of posts such as UDC and LDC, the

distribution of vacancies as per the model roster was not

followed, and several candidates were selected in deviation of

the prescribed category-wise allocation. This resulted in denial

of rightful representation to reserved categories and rendered

the selection process arbitrary and illegal.

21. Learned counsel also submits that in certain cases,

appointments were made contrary to express prohibitions

contained in earlier Government communications, including the

stipulation that no fresh appointments be made on Class-IV

posts in certain establishments. Despite such restrictions, the

University proceeded to make appointments, further

compounding the illegality. It is submitted that upon receipt of

complaints regarding the irregularities in the selection process,

the State Government constituted an inquiry committee, which

found lapses in adherence to roster rules and other procedural

requirements. Based on such findings and subsequent

correspondence with the University, the Department took a

considered decision to withdraw the earlier approval granted in

2019.

22. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the

Department made efforts to segregate valid and invalid
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
18/50

appointments and took a policy decision that only those

appointments which were made strictly in accordance with law

would be considered for approval. It is in this context that the

issue relating to the post of UDC assumes significance. It is

submitted that as per the governing statutes, including the

provisions notified under memo dated 04.03.2014, the post of

UDC is a promotional post, and direct recruitment thereto is

impermissible. Since the present petitioners were directly

appointed to the said post, their appointments were found to be

contrary to the statutory scheme and hence not eligible for

approval.

Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid position

was reiterated in the meeting held on 25.10.2024, the

proceedings whereof have already been brought on record. It

was observed that candidates directly appointed to promotional

posts, including the petitioners, could not be granted approval.

In furtherance thereof, upon receipt of renewed proposal for

grant of approval from the University, the Department passed

the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 rejecting the appointment

of such candidates while approving those found to be in

accordance with law.

23. It is further submitted that although directions
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
19/50

were issued by the Department to consider payment of salary

for the period during which the petitioners had actually worked,

such payment was made subject to verification of work and

availability of funds, and cannot be construed as conferring any

legal right to hold the post or to claim retrospective approval.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned

counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 (State) submits that the

impugned order is a reasoned and lawful decision taken after

due consideration of all relevant factors, including statutory

provisions, judicial directions, and factual irregularities in the

selection process. It is thus submitted that the writ petition,

being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder to

the counter affidavits filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5

(State) as well as Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 (University), submits

that the respondents have attempted to introduce facts which are

either misleading or incomplete, while omitting material aspects

already on record. It is submitted in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder

to the counter affidavit of Respondent Nos. 6 to 8, that both the

State and the University had earlier given a clear undertaking

before this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 14196 of 2015 and

MJC No. 943 of 2017 that long-serving daily wage employees
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
20/50

would be accommodated by granting due weightage, pursuant

to which the petitioners were duly appointed in 2017 after

following a structured selection process. It is contended that the

present stand of the respondents, seeking to invalidate such

appointments on the ground that the post of U.D.C. is

promotional in nature, is a clear departure from their earlier

binding submissions and is therefore impermissible and

unsustainable in law.

25. It is further submitted by the petitioners in

paragraph 5 of the rejoinder to counter affidavit by Respondent

Nos. 2 to 5 (State), that the reliance placed by the respondents

on the case of Rajeshwar Roy is misconceived, inasmuch as

the petitioners herein have specifically challenged the

subsequent impugned order dated 13.02.2025, which

independently affects their rights. Learned counsel emphasizes,

with reference to paragraph 4 of the rejoinder to Respondent

Nos. 2 to 5, that the earlier judgment dated 20.10.2022 has

attained finality and could not have been circumvented by

administrative action in the form of subsequent reports and

orders, which are alleged to be contrary to judicial

determination binding inter se between parties. It is also

submitted, with reference to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
21/50

rejoinder to Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, that the respondents’ plea

regarding the promotional nature of the post is factually and

legally untenable, particularly in the absence of any functional

feeder cadre at the relevant time, and therefore the

appointments made through direct selection cannot be faulted.

Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioners points out, on

the basis of paragraph 6 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit

of Respondent Nos. 6 to 8, that the allegation regarding strike

or non-performance of duties is incorrect and unsupported by

record, and hence cannot be used to deny salary or other service

benefits.

26. It has further been submitted on behalf of

Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, by way of a supplementary counter

affidavit filed in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2026, that

although a statement was recorded before this Court with regard

to payment of current salary and arrears but the said statement

made was without the consent of the department and therefore,

the answering respondents have reiterated their stand on merits

as taken in the earlier counter affidavit. It is contended that the

decision contained in Memo No. 494 dated 12.04.2021

continues to hold the field, having not been interfered with in

earlier proceedings, and forms the basis of subsequent actions
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
22/50

including the impugned order dated 13.02.2025.

It is further submitted that the case of the present

petitioners stands on similar footing to that of one Rajeshwar

Roy, whose claim has already been examined pursuant to

judicial directions and ultimately rejected by the competent

authority vide order dated 24.09.2025, and therefore the

petitioners are not entitled to any different treatment.

27. It has also been urged that the entitlement to

salary and consequential benefits is dependent upon a valid and

duly approved appointment, and in absence thereof, no financial

liability can be fastened upon the State. In this regard, reliance

has been placed upon the judgment rendered in CWJC No.

19337 of 2016 and its affirmation in LPA No. 368 of 2018.

Lastly, it has been contended that the concession recorded on

behalf of the State during the course of hearing was not based

on approval of the competent authority and, therefore, the same

cannot be treated as binding upon the department. On these

additional grounds, it has been prayed that the writ application

is liable to be dismissed.

28. Having regard to the rival pleadings, the sequence

of administrative and judicial orders brought on record, and the

core controversy arising from the impugned action, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
23/50

following substantial issues arise for consideration in the

present case:

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

(i) Whether the impugned order contained in Memo No.

14/MU/13-266/2021-175 dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32),

whereby approval of the petitioners’ appointment to the post of

Upper Division Clerk has been withheld on the ground that the

said post is promotional in nature, is legally sustainable,

particularly in the backdrop of the selection process undertaken

pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble Court and the policy

decision reflected in Memo No. 1403 dated 29.11.2016

(Annexure-H)?

(ii) Whether the respondents, having participated in and

acted upon the process culminating in the appointment of the

petitioners in 2017 pursuant to the orders passed in CWJC No.

14196 of 2015 and MJC No. 943 of 2017 (Annexure-P/15 and

Annexure-P/17), are precluded in law from subsequently

denying approval to such appointments, in light of the doctrines

of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and approbation

and reprobation?

(iii) Whether the reliance placed by the respondents on

Memo No. 494 dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure-P/26), the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
24/50

subsequent observations contained in Memo No. 1689 dated

29.11.2024 (Annexure-P/31), and the impugned order contained

in Memo dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32), can be sustained

in law, particularly when the earlier judgment dated 20.10.2022

passed in CWJC No. 12758 of 2021 (Annexure-P/30) although

having taken notice of the order contained in Memo No. 494

dated 12.04.2021 regarding withdrawl of approval, still passed

order for payment of arrears of salary?

(iv) Whether the case of the present petitioners can, in

law and on facts, be treated as identical to that of Rajeshwar

Roy, whose claim was rejected pursuant to order dated

24.09.2025 (Annexure-C), despite the petitioners having

independently challenged the impugned Memo dated

13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32) and asserted distinct factual and

legal grounds?

(v) Whether, irrespective of the dispute regarding

approval of appointment, the petitioners, having admittedly

discharged duties, are entitled to payment of current salary and

arrears of salary from June 2023 onwards?

(vi) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the

present case, the petitioners are entitled to grant of approval of

their appointment with retrospective effect from their initial
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
25/50

dates of engagement, i.e., 22.06.1992 and 14.01.1995

respectively, along with consequential notional service benefits

including seniority, pay fixation, and pensionary advantages,

notwithstanding the fact that their formal appointment to the

post of Upper Division Clerk was made in the year 2017

pursuant to the directions of this Court?

FINDINGS:

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order contained in

Memo No. 14/MU/13-266/2021-175 dated 13.02.2025

(Annexure-P/32), whereby approval of the petitioners’

appointment to the post of Upper Division Clerk has been

withheld on the ground that the said post is promotional in

nature, is legally sustainable, particularly in the backdrop

of the selection process undertaken pursuant to the

directions of this Hon’ble Court and the policy decision

reflected in Memo No. 1403 dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure-

H)?

Finding on Issue No. (i)

At the outset, this Court finds that the impugned order

contained in Memo No. 14/MU/13-266/2021-175 dated

13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32), whereby approval of the

petitioners’ appointment to the post of Upper Division Clerk
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
26/50

(U.D.C.) has been withheld on the sole ground that the said post

is promotional in nature, cannot be sustained in law in the facts

of the present case.

From the materials available on record, it is evident that

the entire process culminating in the appointment of the

petitioners in the year 2017 was not an independent or unilateral

exercise undertaken by the University, but was carried out

strictly in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in

CWJC No. 14196 of 2015 and the subsequent proceedings in

MJC No. 943 of 2017 (Annexure-P/15). The said directions led

to a consultative process between the State Government and the

University, which ultimately crystallized in the policy decision

contained in Memo No. 1403 dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure-H).

The said policy expressly contemplated that employees who

had rendered long years of service would be given due

consideration through a structured selection process by granting

weightage for their past service, relaxation in age, and

adherence to prescribed qualifications and roster.

Pursuant thereto, the State Government itself, vide letter

dated 16.08.2017 (Annexure-K), laid down the criteria for

selection, allocating 30 marks towards work experience,

thereby recognizing and institutionalizing the claim of such
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
27/50

long-serving employees. The petitioners participated in such

process and were appointed vide notification dated 17.11.2017

(Annexure-P/17), and their appointments were not shown to be

dehors the procedure so prescribed. Thus, the appointments in

question were the culmination of a court-monitored and State-

guided process, and cannot now be treated as irregular or

impermissible merely by retrospectively recharacterizing the

nature of the post.

The stand of the respondents that the post of U.D.C. is a

promotional post, as sought to be justified with reference to the

Statute dated 04.03.2014, is found to be misplaced in the

peculiar facts of the present case. Firstly, the very policy

decision contained in Memo No. 1403 dated 29.11.2016

(Annexure-H), which was framed in compliance with judicial

directions, did not prohibit consideration of such employees

against Class-III posts, but rather directed the authorities to

undertake a comprehensive exercise keeping in view

experience, eligibility and equitable considerations. Secondly, it

has been specifically asserted, and not effectively controverted,

that at the relevant point of time there was no functional feeder

cadre available in the University from which promotion to the

post of U.D.C. could be effected. In such a situation, the rigid
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
28/50

application of the “promotional post” doctrine would defeat the

very purpose of the exercise undertaken pursuant to judicial

intervention.

Further, the record reveals that the State itself had

sanctioned 68 posts of non-teaching employees vide Memo No.

1592 dated 02.12.2014 (Annexure-A), and thereafter permitted

the University to proceed with appointments in terms of the

directions of this Court. Having thus actively participated in the

creation of posts, formulation of selection criteria, and

completion of the selection process, the respondents cannot

now be permitted to turn around and invalidate the outcome of

such process on a ground which was neither raised at the

relevant time nor acted upon during the course of selection.

The impugned action also suffers from the vice of

arbitrariness, inasmuch, as it seeks to unsettle appointments

made nearly eight years prior, without demonstrating any fraud,

misrepresentation, or fundamental illegality in the selection

process. The subsequent reliance upon Memo No. 494 dated

12.04.2021 (Annexure-P/26) and the decisions flowing

therefrom does not cure this defect, as the said memo itself was

subject matter of challenge and was not affirmed on merits by

this Court in the earlier round of litigation thereby resulting in
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
29/50

the Court directing for payment of salary to the petitioners of

that case (Annexure-P/30).

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the respondents’ reliance upon the promotional

nature of the post to deny approval to the petitioners’

appointments is legally untenable in the peculiar factual matrix

of this case. The appointments having been made pursuant to a

process evolved under the aegis of this Court and with the

participation of the State, the impugned order dated 13.02.2025

(Annexure-P/32) cannot be sustained and is liable to be set

aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents, having

participated in and acted upon the process culminating in

the appointment of the petitioners in 2017 pursuant to the

orders passed in CWJC No. 14196 of 2015 and MJC No. 943

of 2017 (Annexure-P/15 and Annexure-P/17), are precluded

in law from subsequently denying approval to such

appointments, in light of the doctrines of promissory

estoppel, legitimate expectation, and approbation and

reprobation?

Finding on Issue no. (ii)

Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
30/50

materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the

respondents, having actively participated in and acted upon the

process culminating in the appointment of the petitioners in the

year 2017, are precluded in law from subsequently denying

approval to such appointments.

It is not in dispute that the process of appointment was

initiated and completed pursuant to the directions issued by this

Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 14196 of 2015 and further

monitored in MJC No. 943 of 2017 (Annexure-P/15). In

compliance thereof, the State Government and the University

jointly deliberated upon the issue and formulated a mechanism,

as reflected in Memo No. 1403 dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure-

H), wherein it was, inter alia, resolved that long-serving

employees would be considered for appointment by granting

weightage to their experience and providing necessary

relaxations. The relevant extract of the said decision reads as

follows:

“...ववषयां वकत मामले मे कायररत कमरर वषररं से अपनर से वा दे

रहे है , इसवलए उनके कायारनुभव एवं से वा अववध के आधार पर

अवतवरकत भार (वे टेज) ववशवववदालय दारा सकम प्रावधकार

का अनु मरदन प्रापत कर वदया जाए...”

Further, the State Government itself, vide letter dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
31/50

16.08.2017 (Annexure-K), prescribed the criteria for such

selection, specifically allocating 30 marks towards work

experience, thereby giving concrete shape to the assurance

extended before this Court. The appointments of the petitioners

were thereafter made vide notification dated 17.11.2017

(Annexure-P/17), and the same were duly acted upon resulting

in the petitioners discharging their duties for several years

without interruption.

In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the doctrine of

promissory estoppel squarely applies. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968

SC 718, has held that where the Government makes a

representation and a party acts upon it, the Government is

bound by such representation. The Court observed:

“...the Government is not exempt from liability to carry

out the representation made by it as to its future conduct

and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground

of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise

solemnly made by it...”

The principle of legitimate expectation is also attracted in

the present case. The petitioners, having been subjected to a

court-monitored selection process, framed with the participation
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
32/50

of the State, and having been appointed and allowed to continue

in service for a considerable period, had a legitimate

expectation that their appointments would not be unsettled on

grounds which were available but not invoked at the relevant

time.

Further, the conduct of the respondents is also clearly hit

by the doctrine of approbation and reprobation. Having

accepted and implemented the process leading to the

appointment of the petitioners, including granting them the

benefit of weightage for past service and allowing them to

discharge duties, the respondents cannot now turn around and

contend that such appointments were impermissible. In this

regard, the principle that a party cannot “blow hot and cold” or

“accept and reject” the same transaction stands squarely

attracted.

It is also relevant to note that the respondents derived

benefit from the services rendered by the petitioners over the

years, and at no point contemporaneously questioned the

legality of their appointments on the ground now sought to be

urged. The subsequent attempt to deny approval, therefore,

appears to be an afterthought and is legally unsustainable.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
33/50

respondents are estopped from denying approval to the

appointments of the petitioners, having themselves initiated,

participated in, and acted upon the very process which

culminated in such appointments. The impugned action, being

contrary to the doctrines of promissory estoppel, legitimate

expectation, and approbation and reprobation, cannot be

sustained in law.

Issue (iii) Whether the reliance placed by the

respondents on Memo No. 494 dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure-

P/26), the subsequent observations contained in Memo No.

1689 dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-P/31), and the impugned

order contained in Memo dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-

P/32), can be sustained in law, particularly when the earlier

judgment dated 20.10.2022 passed in CWJC No. 12758 of

2021 (Annexure-P/30) although having taken notice of the

order contained in Memo No. 494 dated 12.04.2021

regarding the withdrawal of grant of approval, still passed

order for payment of arrears of salary.

Finding on Issue no. (iii)

This Court has carefully considered the submissions

advanced on behalf of the parties with regard to the reliance

placed by the respondents upon Memo No. 494 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
34/50

12.04.2021 (Annexure-P/26) and the subsequent observation

contained in Memo No. 1689 dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-

P/31), and the impugned order contained in Memo dated

13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32). Upon a holistic appreciation of

the factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered

view that such reliance cannot be sustained in law in the

peculiar facts of the present case.

At the outset, it is evident that Memo No. 494 dated

12.04.2021 (Annexure-P/26), whereby approval earlier granted

to certain non-teaching employees was withdrawn, became the

foundational basis for all subsequent actions of the respondents.

However, the legality and effect of the said memo fell for

consideration before this Court in CWJC No. 12758 of 2021

and analogous matters, which were disposed of by judgment

dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure-P/30). A plain reading of the said

judgment indicates that this Court did not affirm or uphold the

withdrawal of approval on merits; rather, it consciously

refrained from interfering with the memo while simultaneously

directing that salary be paid to those who were discharging

duties. This direction for payment of salary could not have been

made by the Court, had the Court agreed to the decision of the

State Government contained in Memo no. 494 dated 12.04.2021
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
35/50

withdrawing earlier granted approval.

Thus, the effect of the judgment dated 20.10.2022

(Annexure-P/30) cannot be construed as a positive validation of

the action taken under Memo No. 494 dated 12.04.2021

(Annexure-P/26). It is well settled that a decision not to

interfere does not amount to affirmation of the reasoning or

legality of the impugned action. In the present case, the Court

adopted a balanced approach, leaving the question of approval

open while ensuring that employees who were actually working

were not denied wages. Therefore, the respondents’ contention

that Memo No. 494 has attained finality on merits is

misconceived.

Further, the subsequent administrative actions, namely

Memo No. 1689 dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-P/31) is found to

be merely consequential to the earlier memo no. 494 dated

12.04.2021 and do not disclose any independent application of

mind to the specific facts of the petitioners’ case. Rather, they

proceed on a generalized assumption that certain categories of

appointments were illegal, without adverting to the peculiar

circumstances under which the petitioners were appointed,

namely, pursuant to judicial directions and a structured, State-

approved selection process.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
36/50

It is also pertinent to note that the impugned

administrative actions fail to consider the intervening

developments, including the long continuance of the petitioners

in service since 2017 and the fact that their appointments were

made pursuant to a process evolved in compliance with the

orders of this Court in CWJC No. 14196 of 2015 and MJC No.

943 of 2017. The absence of any individualized assessment or

reasoned determination renders the subsequent decisions

vulnerable to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness.

Moreover, the reliance placed on Memo No. 494 dated

12.04.2021 (Annexure-P/26) to retrospectively invalidate

appointments made years earlier, without any finding of fraud,

misrepresentation, or fundamental procedural illegality, is

legally impermissible. It has long been the settled view that

administrative decisions cannot be applied in a manner so as to

unsettle vested rights accrued through a process undertaken

under judicial supervision.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds that the reliance

placed by the respondents on Memo No. 494 dated 12.04.2021

(Annexure-P/26), the subsequent observations contained in

Memo No. 1689 dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-P/31), and the

impugned order contained in Memo dated 13.02.2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
37/50

(Annexure-P/32) is legally unsustainable. The judgment dated

20.10.2022 (Annexure-P/30) cannot be read as conferring

legitimacy upon the withdrawal of approval, and the impugned

actions, being mechanical and devoid of proper consideration of

the petitioners’ case, cannot be upheld.

Issue (iv) Whether the case of the present petitioners

can, in law and on facts, be treated as identical to that of

Rajeshwar Roy, whose claim was rejected pursuant to order

dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure-C), despite the petitioners

having independently challenged the impugned Memo dated

13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32) and asserted distinct factual

and legal grounds?

This Court has considered the contention of the

respondents that the case of the present petitioners is identical

to that of Rajeshwar Roy and, therefore, is liable to be governed

by the same outcome as reflected in the order dated 24.09.2025

(Annexure-C). Upon careful scrutiny of the materials on record,

this Court finds that such a contention is misplaced both on

facts and in law.

At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioners

herein have specifically challenged the impugned order

contained in Memo No. 14/MU/13-266/2021-175 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
38/50

13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32), whereby approval of their

appointments has been withheld. The present writ petition,

therefore, raises an independent cause of action, requiring

adjudication on the basis of the factual matrix and legal grounds

urged by the petitioners. In contrast, the case of Rajeshwar Roy

proceeded in a different factual and procedural context,

culminating in an administrative rejection of his claim vide

Memo No. 215 dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure-C), pursuant to a

direction issued in CWJC No. 2434 of 2025.

In the case of Rajeshwar Roy, he had filed a writ

application bearing CWJC No. 2434 of 2025 wherein he had

prayed for regularisation in service and consequential monetary

relief. While disposing off the said writ application on

13/02/2025, this court had made the following observations

(operative portion):-

“The Vice Chancellor is directed to call for all the
particulars relating to the petitioner and examine the
case and submit a report before the Addl. Chief
Secretary, Education deptt., Govt. of Bihar for doing the
needful in the case of the petitioner, who has been
harassed time and again to approach this court”

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction given in CWJC No.

2434 of 2025 the case of Rajeshwar Roy was examined by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
39/50

University and was found that Rajeshwar Roy had indulged in

fraud and manipulation, consequent upon which, the case of

Rajeshwar Roy was dismissed by the University, by taking the

following decision, the operative portion of which reads as:-

“In view of the above facts & figures, the prayer of the
petitioner Rajeshwar Roy has no substance and is fit to
be dismissed. The Hon’ble Patna High Court may kindly
be moved accordingly or as the Additional Chief
Secretary, Education Deptt, Govt. of Bihar deems fit.”

It is in the aforesaid backdrop, that the decision of the

University was approved/upheld by the State Government vide

Annexure C to the Counter Affidavit. In the present case, it is

not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have ever

indulged in either fraud or manipulation. Therefore, to equate

the case of the petitioners to that of Rajeshwar Roy is

completely misconceived and misplaced.

Further, it is also evident that the order dated 24.09.2025

(Annexure-C) in the case of Rajeshwar Roy is an

administrative determination and not a binding judicial

precedent. Such an order cannot be mechanically applied to

other cases without independent consideration of the relevant

facts and legal issues. The approach adopted by the

respondents, in treating the petitioners’ claim as concluded
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
40/50

merely on the basis of the rejection of another individual’s

claim, is contrary to settled principles of administrative fairness

and reasoned decision-making.

It is also significant that the petitioners have raised

distinct legal grounds, including challenge to the impugned

Memo dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32), the applicability of

the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and the effect of prior

judicial directions. These aspects have neither been examined

nor adjudicated in the case of Rajeshwar Roy in a manner that

would foreclose the petitioners’ claim.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds that the case of

the present petitioners cannot be treated as identical to that of

Rajeshwar Roy, and the reliance placed by the respondents on

the rejection of his claim is legally untenable. The petitioners

are entitled to an independent adjudication of their rights based

on the facts and circumstances peculiar to their case, and the

impugned action cannot be justified on the ground of parity

with an administrative decision rendered in another matter.

Issue (v) Whether, irrespective of the dispute

regarding approval of appointment, the petitioners, having

admittedly discharged duties, are entitled to payment of

current salary and arrears of salary from June 2023
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
41/50

onwards?

Finding on Issue (v)

The issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled to

payment of current salary and arrears of salary from June 2023

onwards, irrespective of the dispute concerning approval of

their appointments, must be answered in the affirmative, both

on settled principles of service jurisprudence and on the

admitted stand of the respondents themselves.

From the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the

petitioners have been discharging their duties and rendering

services under the University. Even the respondents, in their

own pleadings, have not categorically denied the factum of

work performed; rather, departmental communications dated

23.03.2023 (referred to in the counter affidavit) clearly indicate

that the University was directed to make payment to such

persons for the period they have actually worked, subject to

verification. This administrative direction itself embodies the

well-established principle that remuneration must follow work.

In this context, the doctrine of “no work, no pay” cannot

be adverted to deny wages where work has in fact been taken.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where an

employee has discharged duties, the employer cannot unjustly
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
42/50

enrich itself by withholding salary on technical or

administrative grounds. The right to receive wages for work

performed is not merely contractual but is also rooted in

Articles 14 and 23 of the Constitution, which prohibit arbitrary

deprivation and exploitation of labour.

The respondents’ contention that salary cannot be paid in

the absence of approval of appointment is equally untenable in

the facts of the present case. The issue of approval pertains to

the legality and continuity of service; however, it does not

obliterate the factual position that services were in fact

rendered. Even in cases where appointments are later found to

be irregular, courts have repeatedly protected the right of

employees to receive wages for the period during which they

actually worked. The reliance placed by the respondents on the

absence of approval, therefore, cannot defeat the petitioners’

claim for salary already earned.

Moreover, the departmental stance, as reflected in letters

dated 23.03.2023, reinforces this position by expressly directing

payment for work done. This shows that even at the

administrative level, there was recognition of the obligation to

compensate the petitioners for services rendered, independent

of the final adjudication on the validity of their appointments.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
43/50

In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered

view that the entitlement of the petitioners to current salary and

arrears from June 2023 onwards stands on a distinct and

independent footing, unaffected by the pendency of disputes

regarding approval of appointment. The respondents, having

admittedly taken work from the petitioners and having

themselves acknowledged, both before this Court and in

departmental communications, the liability to pay for such

work, cannot be denied.

Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the

petitioners, holding that they are entitled to payment of current

salary as well as arrears of salary from June 2023 onwards and

the respondents are under a legal obligation to ensure such

payment within a reasonable time.

Issue (vi) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, the petitioners are entitled to grant of

approval of their appointment with retrospective effect from

their initial dates of engagement, i.e., 22.06.1992 and

14.01.1995 respectively, along with consequential notional

service benefits including seniority, pay fixation, and

pensionary advantages, notwithstanding the fact that their

formal appointment to the post of Upper Division Clerk was
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
44/50

made in the year 2017 pursuant to the directions of this

Court?

Finding on Issue no. (vi)

While addressing the issue as to whether the petitioners

are entitled to grant of approval of their appointment with

retrospective effect from 22.06.1992 and 14.01.1995 along with

consequential notional benefits, this Court is of the considered

view that such a claim cannot be sustained in law, having regard

to the factual matrix and the settled principles governing service

jurisprudence.

At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were

initially engaged as daily wage workers between the years 1992

and 1995. The materials on record, including the counter

affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, clearly indicate

that at the relevant point of time, there were no duly sanctioned

posts against which the petitioners were engaged. The sanction

of posts in the University came much later, vide Government

Memo No. 1592 dated 02.12.2014, issued pursuant to the

directions of this Hon’ble Court in earlier proceedings. Thus,

the foundational requirement of holding a post borne on a

sanctioned cadre was absent at the time of initial engagement of

the petitioners.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
45/50

It is a settled proposition of law that regularisation or

grant of service benefits with retrospective effect cannot be

claimed from a date when the employee was not appointed

against a sanctioned post. The distinction between engagement

as a daily wager and appointment to a regular post is not merely

procedural but goes to the root of the legality of the claim. In

the present case, the petitioners were admittedly not appointed

through a regular selection process in the years 1992 and 1995,

nor were they holding sanctioned posts at that stage. Their

eventual appointment in the year 2017 (Annexure-P/17) was

made pursuant to a fresh selection process undertaken in

compliance with the directions of this Hon’ble Court, wherein

weightage for past service was duly accorded as per Memo No.

1403 dated 29.11.2016.

This Court further notes that the benefit of past service

rendered by the petitioners was not ignored; rather, it was duly

recognized and compensated in the selection process itself by

granting weightage marks. Therefore, the claim for further

retrospective regularisation from the initial dates of engagement

would amount to conferring a double benefit, which is not

permissible in law.

Moreover, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
46/50

Court in cases relating to regularisation consistently emphasizes

that past service rendered on daily wage or casual basis,

particularly against non-sanctioned posts, does not

automatically entitle an employee to be regularised from the

initial date of such engagement. Regularisation, when

permissible, takes effect from the date of lawful appointment

against a sanctioned post and not from the date of initial casual

engagement.

In the facts of the present case, the petitioners’

appointment to the post of Upper Division Clerk in the year

2017 was the first instance of their induction into a regular

cadre post, following a process recognized in law and

supervised by judicial directions. Consequently, while their

long years of service prior thereto may entitle them to equitable

consideration, the same cannot be stretched to grant notional

seniority, pay fixation, or pensionary benefits from 1992 and

1995, when they were merely engaged as daily wagers without

the backing of sanctioned posts.

Accordingly, upon a comprehensive consideration of the

factual and legal position, this Court holds that the claim of the

petitioners for grant of retrospective approval of their

appointment from 22.06.1992 and 14.01.1995, along with
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
47/50

consequential notional benefits is legally untenable and cannot

be sustained. The said dates pertain to a period during which the

petitioners were merely engaged as daily wage workers, not

borne on any sanctioned posts, nor appointed through a process

recognized in law. The subsequent creation and sanction of

posts in the year 2014, followed by a structured selection

process culminating in their appointment in 2017, marks the

first point at which their services attained legal sanctity in the

eyes of service law. While the long tenure of service rendered

by the petitioners prior to such appointment has rightly been

accorded due weightage in the selection process, the same

cannot be elevated to confer a right of retrospective

regularisation or notional continuity in service from a date

when no enforceable legal right existed. Granting such relief

would not only run contrary to settled principles but would also

amount to rewriting the terms of appointment and overlooking

the distinction between casual engagement and regular service.

Consequently, the petitioners’ entitlement to service benefits

must necessarily be confined to the period commencing from

their valid appointment in the year 2017.

RELIEF(s)

29. In the light of the discussions made
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
48/50

hereinabove and the findings recorded on each of the issues, the

reliefs prayed for by the petitioners are considered and disposed

of as follows:

(i) With respect to the first relief, seeking quashing of the

impugned office order contained in Memo No. 14/MU/13-

266/2021-175 dated 13.02.2025, this Court, for the reasons

recorded while deciding Issue No. (i), holds that the said

impugned order, whereby approval of the petitioners’

appointment to the post of Upper Division Clerk has been

withheld on the ground that the post is promotional in nature, is

legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the said Memo dated

13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/32) is hereby quashed and set aside.

(ii) With respect to the second relief, seeking a direction

for grant of approval of appointment/service of the petitioners

with retrospective effect from 22.06.1992 and 14.01.1995, this

Court, for the reasons elaborately discussed while answering

Issue No. (vi), holds that such a claim is not tenable in law. The

petitioners, having been engaged as daily wage workers on non-

sanctioned posts during the said period, cannot claim

retrospective approval from those dates. Accordingly, this relief

is declined.

(iii) With respect to the third relief, seeking grant of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
49/50

notional benefits from the initial dates of engagement i.e.,

22.06.1992 and 14.01.1995, this Court finds that in view of the

petitioners’ status as daily wagers during the relevant period and

absence of sanctioned posts, no such notional benefits can be

granted from those dates. However, it is clarified that the

petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits

strictly in accordance with law from the date of their valid

appointment in the year 2017. To this extent, the relief stands

partly allowed.

(iv) With respect to the fourth relief, seeking payment of

current salary along with arrears of salary due from June 2023,

this Court, in view of the admitted position and the stand

recorded before this Court on 17.03.2026, as well as the

principles discussed while deciding Issue No. (v), holds that the

petitioners are entitled to receive their current salary and arrears

of salary from June 2023 onwards. Accordingly, the

respondents are directed to ensure payment of the same within a

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a

copy of this judgment.

(v) With respect to the fifth relief, seeking payment of

interest on the delayed payment of arrears of salary, this Court

is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7250 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
50/50

present case, where the petitioners have been deprived of their

legitimate dues for a considerable period without justifiable

cause, they are entitled to be compensated. Accordingly, it is

directed that the arrears of salary payable to the petitioners from

June 2023 shall carry simple interest at a reasonable rate, which

is quantified at 6% per annum, to be calculated from the date

the salary became due till the date of actual payment. Interest

payment shall also be made within a period of eight weeks

along with the arrears of salary.

30. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case, this writ application is allowed on the aforesaid

terms. All pending I.As, if any, shall stand disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

kundan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 28.04.2026
Uploading Date 05.05.2026
Transmission Date NIL

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.