Writ petition seeking counting of daily-wage service from 1975 for pensionary benefits. Following a Co-ordinate Bench decision in Ram Ekbal Mahto holding daily-wage service non-pensionable under the new pension scheme, 2005, the writ petition was dismissed in terms of that order.
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 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17628 of 2014
======================================================
Udeshwari Yadav, son of Late Shukdeo Yadav, resident of village Manikchak, P.S. Banka, District Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026
“i. Issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to calculate the service period from 1975 and after that to sanction all the retiral dues alongwith pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
ii. Issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.17628 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026 2/4
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra . It is contended that the issue stands squarely covered by the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 86 of 2019 ( Ram Ekbal Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. ), wherein an identical issue was considered and adjudicated. The Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition may also be disposed of, in terms of the order dated 09.07.2021.
“I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record. Considering the fact that as per the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 12.09.2009 as also according to the resolution of the Finance Department dated 31.08.2005, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17628 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026 3/4
provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 are not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is amenable to the new pension scheme, 2005, no relief can be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as firstly, his services are not pensionable and secondly, his past services rendered as a daily wage employee cannot be counted as a qualifying period for the purposes of grant of pension in view of the law laid down by the learned Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that the service rendered by a daily wage employee is not a pensionable service and does not qualify for pension.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17628 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026 4/4
made by the parties, the present writ petition stands dismissed in terms of the aforesaid order passed in Ram Ekbal Mahto (supra) .
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 20.02.2026 |
| Transmission Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his service period counted from 1975 for sanction of retiral dues and pensionary benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Ekbal Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Relied on¶3
CWJC No. 86 of 2019
Udeshwari Yadav
The State of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
The Additional Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
The Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Patna
G. Anupama Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
