Chandeshwar Ojha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11347 of 2023 ====================================================== 1.

Chandeshwar Ojha Son of Hari Narayan Ojha, R/o Village - Babhanpura, Mubarakpur, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District - Patna. 2.

Ramayan Tiwari, Son of Late Kedar Tiwari, Resident of Village- Sonawn, Post - Kharenda, P.S. - Belaon, District - Kaimur. 3.

Rajbansh Singh, S/o Late Harpat Singh, Resident of Village - Belaon, Post - Harenda, P.S. - Belaon, District- Kaimur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.

4.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Finance Division, Mohania (Kaimur). 5.

The Circle Officer, Mohnia (Kaimur).

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Niwas Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29-06-2026 Heard Mr. Ram Nivas Prasad, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Saurabh Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioners were duly engaged on the post of Seasonal Collector in the Kaimur district joined on their respective post some time in the year 1977-79 and discharged their respective duties on different places as per the direction of the concerned authorities. Referring to a Resolution No. 5547 dated 03.07.2019 issued by Finance Department, Government of

Patna High Court CWJC No.11347 of 2023 dt.29-06-2026 2/3 Bihar, whereby the State has taken a decision that work charge employees who have completed ten or more years of continuous service against one post in the work charge establishment will be paid pension and/or family pension in case of death of such work charge employee; the petitioners preferred representation in terms of aforesaid resolution but to no avail. It is submitted that identically situated persons have approached this Court and they have been relegated to the concerned authorities for consideration of their grievances.

3. Learned Advocate for the State, dispelling the aforesaid contention, submitted that admittedly the petitioners had been engaged as a Seasonal Sangrahak ( Revenue Collector) in the Erstwhile Directorate of Revenue, Department of Water Resources, Patna which was later on dissolved in the year 2005 itself. Since the petitioners were engaged in each season as per requirement of the work in the department of deponent, they were disengaged much before the year 1992 and 1996 respectively from the work and thereafter, they had never been engaged again in the Department of Water Resources. Neither the services of the petitioners were ever regularized nor they have ever been engaged in the work charge establishment of the department. So far the resolution upon which reliance has been placed that relates to work charge employees and it has no

Patna High Court CWJC No.11347 of 2023 dt.29-06-2026 3/3 application with respect to the seasonal labours/employees of the revenue collector.

4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced and taken note of the resolution dated 03.07.2019 which is exclusively related to the work charge employees issued in the light of the order passed by this Court in Mobina Khatun Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in LPA No. 166 of 2018 and other analogous cases wherein this Court has directed the State Government to frame the rules with respect to admissibility of pension/family pension to the work charge employees on completion of ten years of continuous service, etc. There is no whisper with respect to the casual employees.

5. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid position of law as also the fact that the petitioners were disengaged some time in the year 1992 and 1997 itself and thereafter they have never been engaged or brought in work charge establishment, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands disposed off.

(Harish Kumar, J) sumit/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date