Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Shailendra Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that services rendered as a daily‑wage employee on a temporary post cannot be treated as regular service for the purpose of MACP benefits, and therefore the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Shailendra Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition seeking that his service as an ad hoc/casual/seasonal typist from 9 December 1987 to 29 June 2002 be counted for benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme Rules, 2010, and that his pay scale be revised with arrears. He argued that his duties were continuous despite being labelled a temporary employee, and that his regularisation on 29 June 2002 should not truncate his benefit entitlement. The State contended that the petitioner was a daily‑wage employee and, relying on Finance Department Resolution No. 5376 dated 27 May 2013, that only service in a temporary post, not a daily‑wage post, qualifies for MACP benefits. The Court examined the nature of the petitioner’s engagement, the definition of a temporary post in the resolution, and the requirement that only regular service be considered for MACP benefits. Concluding that the petitioner’s service was that of a daily‑wage worker on a temporary post and therefore not regular, the Court held that his past service could not be counted for MACP benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether service rendered as an ad hoc/casual/seasonal (daily‑wage) employee can be counted for benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme Rules, 2010.
  • Whether Finance Department Resolution No. 5376 (27 May 2013) precludes counting such service for MACP benefits.
  • Whether the date of regularisation (29 June 2002) determines the commencement of benefit entitlement.

Subjects

  • ACP
  • MACP
  • temporary employee
  • daily wage employee
  • regularisation
  • employment benefits
  • pay scale revision
  • civil writ jurisdiction
  • Patna High Court

Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8800 of 2024
     ======================================================
     Shailendra Kumar Singh S/o- Ramakant Prasad Singh, R/o- Village-
     Bhagwanpur Kamla, P.S.- Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur.

                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                     Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
     Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Creation, Water Resources Department.
     Motihari.
3.   The Superintending Engineer, Tirhut Canal Circle, Motihari.
4.   The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division, Motihari.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mrs.Namrata Mishra, Sr. Advocate
                                   Mrs. Anamika Kumari, Advocate
                                   Mr. Chhotelal Mishra, Advocate
                                   Mrs. Archana Jha, Advocate
     For the State          :      Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7
                                   Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-7
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                         ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 11-02-2026
                Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and

      learned counsel for the State.

                     2. The present writ petition has been filed with a

      limited prayer seeking a direction to the respondents to count

      the past services rendered by the petitioner as an ad

      hoc/casual/seasonal employee on the vacant post of Typist in the

      office of the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Gandak

      Yojna, Motihari, from 09.12.1987 till the regularization of his

      services on 29.06.2002, for the purpose of grant of benefits

      under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme Rules,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8800 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026
                                           2/3




         2010, and further for a direction to revise his pay scale and

         make payment of consequential arrears of salary.

                     3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly

         submits that the services of the petitioner were admittedly

         regularized with effect from 29.06.2002. It is further submitted

         that thereafter the petitioner has been receiving his dues and

         salary by treating him as a regular employee. Learned counsel

         contends that the petitioner had been continuously discharging

         duties     since    09.12.1987,         though   described   as   an   ad

         hoc/casual/seasonal employee, against a vacant post of Typist.

         On such basis, it is argued that the past services of the petitioner

         ought to be counted for the purposes of ACP/MACP benefits.

                     4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

         submits that the petitioner had initially been engaged as a daily

         wage employee and services rendered in such capacity cannot

         be counted for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP benefits. In

         support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon

         Finance Department Resolution No. 5376 dated 27.05.2013,

         wherein it has been clarified that only services rendered as a

         temporary employee and against a temporary post are to be

         counted for ACP/MACP benefits but a daily wager cannot be

         said to be and comes within the definition of the temporary post
             Patna High Court CWJC No.8800 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026
                                                        3/3




                      according to resolution no. 5376 dated 27.05.2013. It is further

                      submitted that the MACP Rules clearly provide that only regular

                      service shall be taken into consideration. Since the petitioner

                      was regularized with effect from 29.06.2002, the benefits have

                      rightly been computed from the said date.

                                  5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      upon perusal of the pleadings as well as Finance Department

                      Resolution No. 5376 dated 27.05.2013, it appears that the

                      petitioner was engaged on the post said to be सामययक पद.

                      Meaning thereby he has to do the work on the said post time to

                      time and not continuously. It is due to this reason, this Court

                      held that the service of the petitioner cannot be treated at par

                      with the employees mentioned in the said Resolution No. 5376

                      dated 27.05.2013 and only due to this reason, his services

                      cannot be treated as regular w.e..f 29.06.2002.

                                  6. With this view of the matter, the present writ

                      petition stands dismissed.


                                                  (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          11/02/2026
Transmission Date       NA


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.