High Court dismissed the LPA challenging the order which granted notional fixation benefits from 07.09.1999 to two appellants appointed as Panchayat Sevak, rejecting claims for retrospective benefits from 1998 or equal treatment for all.
The Letters Patent Appeal No. 48 of 2021 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.48 of 2021 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7193 of 2015
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.48 of 2021(5) dt.07-10-2024 2/6
... ... Appellant/s
Patna High Court L.P.A No.48 of 2021(5) dt.07-10-2024 3/6
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar, AC to AAG6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
Patna High Court L.P.A No.48 of 2021(5) dt.07-10-2024 4/6
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
5 07-10-2024 In the instant LPA, appellants have assailed the order
dated 23.04.2019 passed in CWJC No. 7193 of 2015. Core issue involved in the present lis is whether appellants are promoted/appointed to the post of Panchayat Sevak from the post of Dalpaties in the district of Muzaffarpur from the date of creation of post of 20.08.1998 or is he entitled to have the benefit of retrospective promotion/appointment to the post of Panchayat Sevak on par with two persons, namely, Awadhesh Prasad Singh and Shiv Pujan Singh who have been granted the benefit of notional fixation from 07.09.1999. Even though they were appointed/promoted to the post of Panchayat Sevak on 19.08.2009 or not?
2. The foundation material for the purpose of filing up of the post of Panchyayat Sevak is a policy decision of the State Government dated 20.08.1998 insofar as providing avenue of promotion or appointment from the post of Dalpaties .
3. The concerned Appointing Authority to the post of Panchayat Sevak appointed the appellants on 02.03.2010. Policy decision dated 20.08.1998 does not stipulate any condition that in the event of promotion or appointment to the post of Panchyat Sevak from Dalpaties they are entitled to be promoted
Patna High Court L.P.A No.48 of 2021(5) dt.07-10-2024 5/6
or appointed w.e.f. 20.08.1998 date on which post of Panchayat Sevak was created. In the absence of such condition stipulated in the foundation material like creation of 74 posts of Panchayat Sevak on 20.08.1998, it does not enure any statutory or vested rights on the appellants insofar as seeking retrospective appointment/promotion to the post of Panchayat Sevak w.e.f. 20.08.1998.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in terms of Annexure-8 to the writ petition two persons, namely, Awadhesh Prasad Singh and Shiv Pujan Singh who are also appointed as Panchayat Sevak on 19.08.2009. However, they have been extended notional benefit from 07.09.1999. Such grant of notional benefits to those persons would not enure to the benefit to the appellants for the reasons that no vested right is created.
5. Question of discrimination among the appellants and the aforementioned persons are not forthcoming for the reasons that they have been extended the benefit of notional benefits from 07.09.1999 contrary to material information. Even though they are promoted/appointed on 19.08.2009 to the post of Panchayat Sevak . Therefore, illegal benefits granted to similarly situated persons would amount extending benefits
Patna High Court L.P.A No.48 of 2021(5) dt.07-10-2024 6/6
illegally. On this issue Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Muthukumar & Ors. vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 151 held that illegality cannot be perpetuated.
6. Accordingly, no interference has been made out insofar as order of learned Single Judge dated 23.04.2019 passed in CWJC No. 7193 of 2015. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 48 of 2021 stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
abhishekkr/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether appellants are entitled to retrospective benefit of notional fixation for the post of Panchayat Sevak from 20.08.1998 or subsequent date.
Whether granting notional fixation to similarly situated persons (Awadhesh Prasad Singh and Shiv Pujan Singh) creates vested rights or unlawful discrimination for other appellants.
Whether the order allowing notional fixation to certain persons constitutes illegal impermissible preference defeating equity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Muthukumar & Ors. vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & Ors.Referred¶2
R. Muthukumar & Ors. vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 151 · Who else cites this
Bharat Thakur and 21 others
The State of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar
The Director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar
The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur
The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Muzaffarpur
P. B. Bajanthri
S. B. Pd. Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
