WRIT PETITION 22654 of 2011 on 23 March 2000

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Healthand Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. Director-in-Chief, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Govt. ofBihar, Patna Bihar, Patna

3. Deputy Director, Department, of Health And Family Welfare, Govt. ofBihar, Patna. Bihar, Patna.

4. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda At Biharsharif.

5. In-charge Officer, District Tuberculosis Centre, Nalanda At Biharsharif.

6. District Provident Fund Officer, Nalanda At Biharsharif.

7. District Treasury Officer, Nalanda At Biharsharif.

... ... Respondent/s

Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s: Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-15

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 07-10-2025

1. Heardlearned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application forthe following reliefs :- “1. (i) To accept the joining of thepetitioner with effect from 23.03.2000 the date onwhich persons below in merit list than petitionerhave been appointed.

(ii) And for further commanding therespondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner asper the merit list and to grant all notional benefitsof continuous service which have been made available to the candidates appointed from themerit list occupying just below the same petitioner.(iii) And for further direction to therespondents to pay full salary with effect from30.04.2007 (date of disposal of C.W.J.C. No. 11497of 2005 filed by the petitioner) after taking intoaccount the benefit accruing to him notionally till29.04.2007 and to pay interest therein at the rate ofsix percent on dues amount with effect from30.04.2007 till the date of appointment.

(iv) And for further direction to therespondents to pay entire arrear of salary aftergranting notional benefits treating the date ofappointment 23.03.2000.

(v) And for further commanding therespondent to provide old pension scheme in placeof contributory pension plan (C.P.P.) since otherappointees placed below in the merit list have beenprovided old pension scheme.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that incompliance of the order dated 16.12.1996 passed in CivilAppeal no.10758-59 of 1996 by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtdirecting the State Government to recruit persons on sanctionedposts of Grade-III and IV under the T.B. Control Programme,the respondents came out with Employment Notice no.1/97which was published in the daily newspaper on 5.5.1997 forappointment on 148 posts of T.B. Health Visitor. On thepetitioner having applied, the names of both the petitioner as also one Manjit Kumar were recommended by the Bihar PublicService Commission (‘BPSC’ in short) on 20.8.1999. In themerit list, the names of the Manjit Kumar and the petitionerwere at Serial nos. 2 and 13.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that while thecandidates whose names figured below the name of thepetitioner in the merit list were appointed vide order dated23.3.2000, the petitioner was denied the appointment.

5. After a series of litigations, including CWJCno.11497 of 2005 filed by the petitioner having been allowed byorder dated 30.4.2007 and Civil Review no.213 of 2007 filed bythe State of Bihar having been dismissed by order dated18.4.2009, the petitioner was finally appointed on 27.8.2009.

6. It is further submitted that CWJC no.7441 of 2000was preferred by Manjit Kumar which was allowed and therespondents were directed to appoint him on the post of HealthVisitor. The State of Bihar preferred LPA no.326 of 2009 whichwas disposed of by order dated 7.7.2009 holding that thepetitioner therein (Manjit Kumar) shall be entitled for salarywith effect from the date of disposal of the writ petition and thathe shall be entitled for seniority and shall rank just next to theperson above him in the merit list.

7. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for thepetitioner that the case of the petitioner standing on a similarfooting to that of Manjit Kumar, he should also be grantedreliefs in similar terms.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted thatthe petitioner was appointed on 27.8.2009 on the post of HealthVisitor in terms of the directions of this Court. He is working inthe said capacity and has been getting regular salary. So far asprayer of the petitioner to treat his service with effect from23.3.2000 and to pay salary from 29.4.2007 along with interestas in the case of Manjit Kumar is concerned, it is submitted thatManjit Kumar had been given the benefits as a result of thedirections of this Court contained in order dated 7.7.2009. Thereis no such direction so far as the petitioner is concerned. As suchhe is not entitled for the said relief.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe materials on record.

10. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondentshaving come out with Employment Notice no.1/97 in the dailynewspaper on 5.5.1997 for appointment on 148 posts of T.B.Health Visitor, the petitioner as also Manjit Kumar applied. Inthe merit-wise list of the recommended candidates prepared by the BPSC, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application,the name of the petitioner figured at Serial no.13 and that ofManjit Kumar at Serial no.2.

11. Inspite of the recommendation of the BPSC, ittranspires that the petitioner was not appointed which led to thepetitioner and others filing CWJC no.142 of 2003 for a directionto the respondents to appoint them on the post of Health Visitorpursuant to Advertisement no.1/97. The same was disposed ofby order dated 4.4.2003 directing the respondents to take a finaldecision on the claim of the petitioner within a period of 2months.

12. Non compliance of the directions contained inorder dated 4.4.2003 led the petitioner to file MJC no.2097 of2003. During pendency of the contempt application, therespondents came out with a resolution dated 9.12.2003 addinga new condition in the terms and conditions of the advertisementwhich was to the effect that ‘no candidate trained from a nonGovernment institution will be appointed on the post of HealthVisitor’.

13. The petitioner challenged the imposition of thenew condition by filing CWJC no.11497 of 2005 which wasallowed, the additional condition imposed by resolution dated 9.12.2003 was quashed and the respondents were directed toconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment expeditiouslywithin a period of 2 months.

14. The State of Bihar preferred a review applicationbeing Civil Review no.213 of 2007 against the order dated30.4.2007 passed in CWJC no.11497 of 2005. The reviewapplication was dismissed by order dated 18.4.2009.

15. It is to be noted here that it was only afterdismissal of the review application that the petitioner wasappointed on 27.8.2009.

16. So far as the case of Manjit Kumar is concerned,this Court by its order dated 24.10.2008 passed in CWJCno.7441 of 2000 had directed the State Government to appointthe petitioner therein on the post of Health Visitor. The saidorder was challenged by the State of Bihar in LPA no.326 of2009 which came to be disposed of on 7.7.2009, the relevantpart of which is quoted herein below for ready reference :- “11. The next question which arises for consideration is as to the relief admissible to thepetitioner. The learned Single Judge has directedfor the petitioner's appointment, but has denied tothe petitioner salary for the past period, but hasgiven notional benefits. We are of the view that thesame needs modification in the interest of justice,even though the writ petitioner has not preferred appeal. The petitioner shall be entitled to thesalary with effect from the date of disposal of thewrit petition, inter alia, for the reason that, we areclearly of the view that the present appeal is whollyunjustified and unmerited, causing clearlyavoidable harassment to the petitioner, and hasburdened this Court with a most unwanted matter.

12. In the result, the order of thelearned Single Judge is upheld with themodification that the writ petitioner shall beentitled with effect from 25.3.2000 (Annexure-6),the date on which the notification appointingothers including those junior to the petitioner, wasissued. He shall be entitled to his seniority andshall rank just next to the person above him in themerit list. He shall accordingly be entitled tocomputation of salary notionally and computationof actual money benefit with effect from24.10.2008. He shall also be entitled to full salarywith effect from 24.10.2008, after taking intoaccount the benefit accruing to him nationally till23.10.2008.”

17. As held in the case of Manjit Kumar, the case of the petitioner standing on a similar footing and appointmentshaving been made from the same merit-wise recommendationlist of the BPSC wherein the names of both the petitioner andManjit Kumar figured, the Court is of the opinion that theapplication of the petitioner is fit to be allowed and the same isallowed.

18. The petitioner shall be entitled for appointmentwith effect from 23.3.2000, the date on which persons below inthe merit list than the petitioner have been appointed with all thenotional benefits. He shall be entitled for salary from 30.4.2007i.e. the date of order in CWJC no.11497 of 2005 filed by him tillthe date of joining i.e. 2.9.2009 which shall be paid to himwithin a period of 3 months.

19. The salary for this period shall be paid taking intoaccount the benefit accruing to him notionally till 29.4.2007.

20. The petitioner shall also be entitled for OldPension Scheme in place of Contributory Pension Plan as givento appointees whose position was lower than that of thepetitioner in the merit list.

21. The writ application stands allowed with theabove observations and directions.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

avinash/-

AFR/NAFRNAFRCAV DATEN/AUploading Date08.10.2025Transmission Date