Patna High Court

Ishwar Lal PaswanversusThe Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority

Decided: 12 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

A contractual employee who is similarly situated to other contractual employees granted gratuity is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Summary

The petitioner, Ishwar Lal Paswan, a former contractual executive of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), filed a writ petition seeking payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, claiming entitlement after 15 years of service. The BIADA had denied the claim, stating that gratuity applies only to permanent employees, despite having granted the same benefit to similarly situated contractual employees in earlier cases. The petitioner relied on prior High Court judgments (e.g., CWJC No.3538 of 2021) where contractual staff were awarded gratuity. The Court examined whether the statutory definition of "employee" under the Gratuity Act includes such contractual workers and considered the principle of non‑discriminatory treatment. Finding that the petitioner was similarly situated to those previously granted gratuity, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to BIADA to pay the gratuity with interest and costs. The order directed payment within eight weeks.

Issues considered

Whether a contractual employee of BIADA is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Whether the denial of gratuity to the petitioner amounts to discriminatory treatment vis-Ã -vis similarly situated contractual employees who received gratuity.
Whether the High Court's earlier judgments extending gratuity to contractual staff are binding precedent in the present case.

Legislation cited

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — s. 7(3A)

Subjects

gratuity
contractual employee
Payment of Gratuity Act
discrimination
writ petition
BIADA
employment benefits

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9050 of 2024
======================================================
Ishwar Lal Paswan Son of Late Nokhe Lal Paswan, Resident of 188, Ram
Krishna Colony, East of Bazar Samiti, Sampatchak, Mahendru, District Patna,
P.O.- Mahendru, P.S.- Bahadurpur Bihar- 800006.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority The Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
2. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority,
Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
3. The Joint Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority,
Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
4. The Executive Director, Operations, Bihar Industrial Area Development
Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
5. The Chief Accounts Officer, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority,
Udyog Bhavan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
6. The Deputy General Manager (H.R. and Admin), Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority, Udyog Bhavan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Harsh Kaushal, Advocate.
Ms. Annapurna Sinha, Advocate.
Ms. Anjali Tulsyan, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

15 12-01-2026 Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the

respective parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

“(i) For setting aside the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.9050 of 2024(15) dt.12-01-2026
2/7

vide Memo No. 1048/Estt. dated
29.01.2024 passed by the Respondent No.
4, Executive Director (Operation)
BIADA, Patna wherein and whereunder
in most whimsical, arbitrary, cryptic
order was passed wherein without
considering the facts and coterminous,
similarly situated contractual employee
has been given the benefit of gratuity in
terms of the Central Act i.e. Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972, and in terms of Order
dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble
Court in CWJC No. 3538 of 2021, Sachin
Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.
and subsequent payment in terms of the
Memo No. 295 dated 29.01.2022, the
legitimate, bona-fide super annual has
illegally, capriciously, maliciously been
rejected vide Memo No.
7532/02/Estt/BIADA 2023 dated
16.12.2023.
(ii) For directing the
Respondent Authorities to pay the
Gratuity to the petitioner, since the
petitioner is entitled on account of
continuous working as an Executive/Area
Manager with Respondents from
06.09.2007 till 25.09.2022 (i.e. about 15
years) under the payment Gratuity Act,
1972 which has not yet been paid despite
the representation filed for the same in
terms of the order dated 01.11.2023
passed by the Hon’ble Court in CWJC
No. 7661/2023.
(iii) To direct the Respondents
to make payment of aforesaid amount
along with statutory interest as prescribed
in Section 7 (3A) of the payment Gratuity
Act, 1972 from the date of its due till the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9050 of 2024(15) dt.12-01-2026
3/7

date of its actual payment.
(iv) To hold and declare the
prayer of the petitioner for the grant of
gratuity along with the payment of
interest concomitant thereto is squarely
covered by the order dated 17.11.2021
passed by the Hon’ble Court in CWJC
No. 3538 of 2021, Sachin Kumar Vs. The
State of Bihar and Ors. and subsequent
payment in terms of the Memo No. 295
dated 29.01.2022.
(v) After allowing the aforesaid
prayer is further pleased to direct the
Respondents to pay the cost of the instant
litigation to the petitioner and also the
interest calculated till the grace period.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the petitioner was an employee of the

Respondent-BIADA and has been working since 2007. Learned

counsel submits that the petitioner has retired from the service

on 25.09.2022 after completion of 60 years, however, the

authority till date have not paid the gratuity amount due to the

petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has

earlier approached this Hon’ble Court by way of CWJC No.

7661 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court on

01.11.2023 directing the Respondent-BIADA to look into the

matter and pass necessary orders. Learned counsel submits that

the Respondent-BIADA has passed the impugned order dated

29.01.2024 vide Memo No. 1048/Estt. whereby the respondent-
Patna High Court CWJC No.9050 of 2024(15) dt.12-01-2026
4/7

authorities have taken stand that the petitioner was appointed on

contractual basis as an Executive in the BIADA vide Letter No.

3547/Estt. dated 01.09.2007 for initial period of of 12 months

and, thereafter, the same has been renewed on yearly basis. As

the petitioner been appointed on contractual basis, the question

of paying the gratuity amount does not arise, that same is

applicable only to the permanent employees of the Respondent-

BIADA. Learned counsel has submitted that the Respondent-

BIADA under similar circumstances have extended the gratuity

benefits to one Sachin Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Singh who was

similarly placed as the petitioner and he was also appointed on

the contractual basis. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of

this Hon’ble Court to the judgment passed by this Hon’ble

Court in CWJC No. 3538 of 2021 dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure

P/7) in respect of the said Sachin Kumar and the consequential

orders (Annexure P/8) passed by the Respondent-BIADA dated

29.01.2022 whereby the said Sachin Kumar was extended the

benefits under the Gratuity Act with interest. Further, it is stated

that other contractual employees similar to the petitioner had

approached this Hon’ble Court by way of CWJC No. 181 of

2015, CWJC No. 11535 of 2015 and CWJC No. 8583 of 2019

and this Court vide order dated 23.11.2015, 21.09.2017 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9050 of 2024(15) dt.12-01-2026
5/7

25.06.2019 respectively and based on the orders passed in their

favour by this Hon’ble High Court, the Respondent-BIADA

authority have paid the gratuity amounts. That the petitioner is

also similarly situated as that of the other contractual persons

and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the Respondent-BIADA that the petitioner is not a

regular/permanent employee and the gratuity amount cannot be

paid is without any legal basis and the same is discriminatory

action taken by the Respondent-BIADA. Learned counsel has

therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned

order dated 29.01.2024 and direct the respondent-authority to

consider the case of the petitioner afresh duly taking into

consideration the other similarly situated persons who have

already been extended the benefit under the Gratuity Act.

Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to

allow the present writ petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the Respondent-BIADA has vehemently opposed the very

maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has

stated that the petitioner is not eligible under the provisions of

the Gratuity Act as he is not a permanent employee of the

Respondent-Organization. That the Gratuity Act will apply only
Patna High Court CWJC No.9050 of 2024(15) dt.12-01-2026
6/7

to the persons who are permanent employees of an organization

and therefore, the gratuity amount payable under the provisions

of the Gratuity Act is not applicable to the petitioner. Learned

counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the

present writ petition.

5. When queried by this Court regarding the Annexure

P/7 i.e. the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 17.11.2021 in

CWJC No. 3538 of 2021 in respect of an employee, namely,

Sachin Kumar and the consequential orders dated 29.01.2022

passed by the Respondent-BIADA (Annexure P/8) with regard

to the benefits paid under the Gratuity Act, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Respondent-BIADA has fairly

submitted that the said Sachin Kumar has been paid the gratuity

amount and is similarly situated as that of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and

circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed and the

impugned order dated 29.01.2024 is set aside. The matter is

remanded back to the Respondent-BIADA for reconsidering the

entire issue duly taking into account that the Respondent-

BIADA has already extended the benefit of the Gratuity Act to

similarly situated persons as that of the petitioner i.e. Sachin

Kumar and other similarly situated persons. The authority shall
Patna High Court CWJC No.9050 of 2024(15) dt.12-01-2026
7/7

endeavour to pass necessary orders and make the necessary

payments along with interest as expeditiously as possible

preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the

receipt of the copy of this order.

7. With the above directions, the present writ petition

stands allowed to the extent indicated.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…