Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, in a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Partha Sarthy, partially allowed the writ petition of a retired work-charge employee of the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) who had sought regularisation on the post of Electrician and financial benefits accrued from long years of performing higher duties. While upholding the rejection of his claim for absorption over a junior colleague on grounds of seniority policy, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full financial benefits for having continuously discharged the duties of an Electrician since 1996. The Court directed the State to release arrears and consider his eligibility for benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme within four months, reaffirming that “no government can be permitted to take work of higher post involving higher duties and responsibilities and not pay for it.”
Facts
The petitioner began his career as a daily wage Pump Operator in the PHED in 1980 and was absorbed in the work-charge establishment in 1988. By 1996, the department’s Establishment Committee, recognizing his technical qualification in electrical trade, appointed him as an Electrician in the scale of ₹1,200–1,800. However, in 2002, the department issued a show-cause notice threatening reversion to daily wage status, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court, which granted interim protection against coercive action.
In 2006, despite long-standing service as an Electrician, the department regularised him on the lower post of Pump Operator while specifying that he would “continue to perform his work as before.” Dissatisfied, he again moved the High Court, which in 2011 directed the department to reconsider his claim in light of a previous Division Bench order and government policy. However, in 2012, the Principal Secretary rejected his plea, citing non-availability of posts. The present petition challenged that decision, seeking absorption as Electrician with retrospective effect and ACP benefits.
Issues
- Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for absorption as Electrician on the ground of non-availability of posts was valid under service law and government policy.
- Whether the petitioner, having continuously performed duties of an Electrician, was entitled to the financial benefits of that higher post.
- Whether the inter se seniority between the petitioner and a junior colleague, Hari Kumar Patel, was correctly determined according to the government’s 2006 policy resolution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that he had been continuously performing the duties of an Electrician since 1980 and that the 1996 departmental decision officially recognized his role in that capacity. Despite this, he was erroneously regularised as a Pump Operator in 2006, though the order itself acknowledged his continued work as an Electrician. He argued that the rejection of his claim in 2012 ignored the Division Bench direction in Ram Tapeshwar Sah v. State of Bihar (2010 (3) PLJR 459) and violated the principle of equality, as his junior, Hari Kumar Patel, was regularised earlier on the same post. The petitioner submitted that under paragraph 8(c) of Ram Tapeshwar Sah, inter se seniority was to be determined by the date of initial entry into service, and since he joined in 1980 (a year before Hari Kumar Patel), he should have been absorbed first.
He also urged that having served for decades performing higher technical work, he was entitled to the monetary benefits of the Electrician post, invoking the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” and fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the writ petition, contending that the petitioner’s claim was contrary to the Government’s policy decision dated 16 March 2006, which stipulated that seniority among daily wagers should be determined by age, not by the date of initial appointment. It was further argued that the alleged statement of the then Additional Advocate General before the Division Bench in Ram Tapeshwar Sah could not override the official policy, as any such concession beyond authorization was non-binding on the Government. Citing Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015 7 SCC 373), the State maintained that counsel’s submissions cannot bind the client when contrary to policy.
The respondents further noted that the petitioner had already been absorbed as a Pump Operator and was not entitled to claim seniority or absorption over a colleague who was elder in age and thus senior under the 2006 policy. However, they admitted that the petitioner had worked as an Electrician throughout but maintained that such work did not create a legal right to promotion or financial upgradation absent a sanctioned post.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the evolution of the petitioner’s service and the government policy governing regularisation. It noted that the 16 March 2006 policy, which governed absorption of Class III and IV daily-wage employees, explicitly provided in Clause 3(i) that seniority was to be determined according to age rather than date of entry. The Court further clarified that while the Division Bench in Ram Tapeshwar Sah had recorded the AAG’s submission regarding seniority by initial entry, such a submission could not override the policy itself.
The Court also discussed the distinction between absorption and entitlement to monetary benefits. It emphasized that while structural absorption depends on sanctioned posts and policy compliance, financial entitlement arises from the factual discharge of higher responsibilities. In this respect, the Court relied on the Finance Department Resolution No. 10710 dated 17 October 2013, which allowed conversion of work-charge posts into regular establishment posts for financial purposes, even if such posts were not formally sanctioned, and required payment till the incumbent’s retirement.
Precedent Analysis
- Ram Tapeshwar Sah v. State of Bihar (2010 3 PLJR 459) – The Division Bench dealt with work-charge employees of PHED whose appointments were questioned. It noted the Government’s 2006 policy on regularisation and recorded submissions that inter se seniority would be based on initial entry. The Patna High Court in the present case clarified that such submissions were subordinate to the explicit terms of the 2006 policy, which prevailed.
- Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015 7 SCC 373) – The Supreme Court held that a lawyer’s concession or statement cannot bind a client if made beyond authorization or contrary to law or policy. The High Court used this precedent to hold that any earlier concession by the State’s counsel could not modify the binding government resolution.
- Pramila Devi v. State of Bihar (LPA No. 1686 of 2010, decided 22 April 2016) – The Division Bench held that when an employee is made to officiate on a higher post for long periods, the Government cannot deny full pay and benefits for that post. The Court quoted: “No government can be permitted to take work of a higher post involving higher duties and responsibilities and not pay for it.” This principle was directly applied to grant the petitioner financial benefits for having worked as an Electrician since 1996.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Partha Sarthy reasoned that since the 2006 policy was never challenged, it governed the petitioner’s case. Under this policy, seniority was determined by age, and as the petitioner was younger than Hari Kumar Patel, his claim for absorption over that colleague could not be sustained. The Court held that the Principal Secretary’s rejection of the petitioner’s absorption claim on this ground was legally sound.
However, acknowledging the undisputed fact that the petitioner had continuously performed duties of an Electrician since 1996, the Court held that equity demanded he be compensated accordingly. Citing Pramila Devi and the Finance Department Resolution of 2013, the Court recognized a clear entitlement to financial benefits for work performed on a higher post, noting that denying such pay would violate Article 14 of the Constitution and public policy.
Thus, while the absorption claim was rejected, the Court granted relief by way of financial compensation and directed consideration of ACP benefits.
Conclusion
The writ petition was partly allowed. The High Court upheld the Government’s decision not to absorb the petitioner as Electrician above his senior colleague, holding it consistent with the unchallenged 2006 policy. Nevertheless, it directed the State to:
- Grant all financial benefits arising from his continuous discharge of duties as Electrician from 31 December 1996 till retirement, after adjusting amounts already paid.
- Consider and decide his eligibility for ACP benefits within four months, granting them if found entitled, or issuing a reasoned order otherwise.
The judgment balanced legal correctness with equitable fairness, ensuring the petitioner’s long service was duly compensated.
Implications
This ruling reinforces two core service-law principles:
- Policy supremacy in seniority determination – Government policy decisions, if unchallenged, govern over any concession or interpretation by counsel or subordinate authority.
- Equitable compensation for higher-duty work – When an employee performs duties of a higher post for extended periods, the employer must grant equivalent financial benefits, even without formal promotion.
The decision thus protects employees from administrative exploitation, affirming that sustained performance of higher responsibilities creates a right to fair remuneration.
FAQs
1. Can a government employee claim benefits of a higher post without formal promotion?
Yes. If the employee has been continuously made to discharge duties of a higher post for long periods, courts can direct payment of higher-post salary, as denying it would be arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Why did the Court refuse absorption over the junior colleague?
Because the 2006 Government policy prescribed seniority by age, not date of appointment. The colleague was older and therefore senior; the petitioner’s challenge could not override the policy.
3. What relief did the petitioner finally receive?
While his claim for absorption as Electrician was rejected, the Court directed the Government to pay all financial benefits of the Electrician post and to consider his eligibility for ACP benefits within four months.
