For service matters of employee/officials, public interest litigation is not maintainable: Patna High Court

In Shambhu Sharan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 4-page long judgement dated September 22, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 read with Girjesh Shrivastava and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 707 held that insofar as service matters of employee/officials are concerned, public interest litigation is not maintainable. Accordingly, present writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), reserving liberty to such of those aggrieved employees to approach or invoke remedy under the Act, 1952."

Justice Bajanthri who authored his 3rd judgement as Chief Justice observed: "it is crystal clear that it is individual relief to be sought by the concerned daily wager or outsourced employee whose services have been engaged in the form of contract. In that regard under Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act, 1952’), there is specific provision. If there is denial of extending of any benefit under the Act, 1952, the concerned individual–employee is required to invoke remedy before quasi judicial authority and further, in the event of passing any adverse order by the quasi judicial authority, in that event, litigant is entitled to file appeal before the appellate authority. There are certain time limit stipulated. In this backdrop, the present public interest litigation filed by a stranger is not maintainable."

The petitioner had prayed for necessary direction upon the respondent authorities to extend the benefits of EPF & MP Act to the contractual/outsourced/daily wages employees engaged by the respondent authorities in their various departments without any social security benefits as provided under the provisions of the EPF & MP Act. It was also prayed that Court should hold that the respondent authorities cannot be allowed to utilize the services of such workers during their working years and to leave them without any social security benefits after their disengagement, which amounts to exploitation of Human resources.