Authority: Patna High Court, Hon. Chief Justice and Hon. Justice Soni Shrivastava, Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai

Order Date: 09-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Surendra Jha (private appellant) vs. The State of Bihar and Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) as respondents; also separate Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State and BIADA as appellants against the same judgment.
  • Original dispute stemmed from the compulsory retirement of Surendra Jha, appointed as Peon on 09‑05‑1979 (Office Order No. 1447) and later treated as a permanent employee after the formation of BIADA.
  • On 27‑09‑2007 a Memo of Charge was served for unauthorized absence; Jha replied on 03‑10‑2007. A subsequent memo dated 10‑11‑2007 ordered his compulsory retirement effective 30‑11‑2007, which he challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 9420 of 2008.
  • The Single Judge’s judgment dated 14‑10‑2025 (C.W.J.C. No. 12211 of 2017) directed respondents 2‑6 (BIADA officials) to pay 70 % back wages for the period 01‑12‑2007 to 03‑07‑2014, to be paid within four months of receipt of the judgment copy.
  • Jha appealed (L.P.A. No. 1104 of 2025) seeking 100 % back wages, arguing that he was unemployed during the retirement period and citing Supreme Court decisions (Novartis India Ltd. vs State of West Bengal, Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya) that mandate full back wages upon illegal termination.
  • The State and BIADA (L.P.A. No. 1136 of 2025) counter‑argued that Jha was a temporary employee with repeated unauthorized absences, that all dues (gratuity, D.A., leave encashment) were paid on superannuation on 31‑07‑2016, and therefore no back‑wage liability existed.
  • Both sides referenced multiple Supreme Court judgments on back‑wage quantum, emphasizing that the percentage is discretionary and fact‑specific (Novartis, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., M.P. State Electricity Board, Jagbir Singh vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board).

Final Outcome

  • The Division Bench held that the Single Judge’s reasoning was reasoned and not manifestly erroneous; no ground was found to interfere with the 70 % back‑wage award.
  • Both Letters Patent Appeals (No. 1104/2025 and No. 1136/2025) were dismissed and disposed of.
  • Any interlocutory applications, if filed, were also disposed of.
  • The order of payment of 70 % back wages to Surendra Jha remains in force.

Topics: Back Wages, Labor Law