Patna High Court
Prabhat KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The petition is disposed, with the District Programme Officer directed to adjudicate the petitioner’s claim for back wages and, if entitled, to grant the salary within the prescribed time.
Summary
The petitioner, a teacher appointed on the recommendation of Justice S.K. Chhattopadhyay, challenged two orders: Memo No.295 rejecting his representation and Memo No.3315 terminating his service. He argued that his appointment, made under the direction of the Apex Court, could not be interfered with and that earlier Division Bench judgments (LPA No.1254 of 2016 and CWJC No.6753 of 2013) had already held such terminations illegal and entitled similarly situated teachers to back wages. The State did not dispute the facts but contended that the issues were already settled by the Division Bench. The High Court found that the petitioner was being discriminated against compared to other teachers who had received salary for the period out of service. Consequently, the Court directed the District Programme Officer to verify the petitioner’s claim and, if found valid, to grant salary within a stipulated time, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's representation (Memo No.295) is valid.
- Whether the termination order (Memo No.3315) is lawful in view of prior judgments.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
- Whether the authorities must pay salary for the period the petitioner was out of service, consistent with similar cases.
Subjects
- appointment
- termination
- reinstatement
- back wages
- service verification
- discrimination
- civil writ jurisdiction
- salary entitlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12258 of 2019
======================================================
Prabhat Kumar Son of Sheer Puran Chandrika Kumar Resident of Village-
Bagmali, Post Office- Hajipur, P.S.- Hajipur (Town), District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director Primary Education, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
5. Bihar School Examination Board Through its Secretary, Sinha Library Road,
Patna.
6. The Secretary Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna.
7. The District Education Officer District- West Champaran, Bettiah.
8. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) District- West Champaran,
Bettiah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satish Narain Singh
For the State : Mr.Kameshwar Kumar (Gp17)
For the BSEB : Mr.P.K.Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Gyan Shankar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 13-01-2026 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief(s):-
“A. To set aside the order
contained in Memo no.295 dated
25.02.2019 passed by Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Education,
Govt. of Bihar, whereby the
representation filed by the petitioner in
compliance of order dated 09.04.2018
in C.W.J.C.No.16248 of 2016 passed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.12258 of 2019(5) dt.13-01-2026
2/5
this Hon'ble Court, has not been
considered in accordance with the
order/direction of this Hon'ble Court
and has been rejected in casual manner.
B. To set aside the order
contained in Memo no.3315 dated
26.08.2016 passed under the signature
of District Education Officer, West
Champaran, Betiah by which the service
of the petitioner has been terminated.
C. To command and direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner
into the service with continuity and
benefits of service and back wages as
well.
D. To grant any other
relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is
found entitled for in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the
appointment of this petitioner’s having been made on the
recommendation of Justice S.K. Chhattopadhyay (Retd.)
Commission constituted under the orders of Hon’ble Apex
Court for making scrutiny of the documents, and upon
acceptance of such report, these appointments were not to be
tinkered/interfered by the authorities in any manner. Still their
appointments were interfered in the name of verification, which
issues have already been adjudicated and put at rest by the
Hon’ble Divison Bench vide LPA No. 1254 of 2016 and other
analogous cases, on the appeal preferred by the State
Government, against the judgment rendered in CWJC No. 6753
Patna High Court CWJC No.12258 of 2019(5) dt.13-01-2026
3/5
of 2013. As, the issues have already been adjudicated, and the
Hon’ble Division Bench was of the view that the appointment of
this petitioner was made as per the direction of Hon’ble Apex
Court, after accepting the recommendation of Justice S.K.
Chhattopadhyay (Retd.) and they could not been terminated on
the grounds of qualification not having been properly verified,
unless otherwise permitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and
since there had been no such liberty restored to the authorities
for making such verification under the garb of which, the
petitioner and similarly situated persons are said to have been
terminated from service and subsequently, were taken back in
service under the orders of this Court, but have been denied
salary for the period, when these petitioners were forced to
remain out of service, while this petitioner was always available
to render services to the State Government.
3. Considering the fact that the issues have already
been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Division Bench, where the
entitlement of salary have also been adjudicated, and various
writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons, have been
adjudicated directing the authorities to release salary in favour
of the persons, whose terminations were subsequently held to
be bad in law, and they have been reinstated and the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.12258 of 2019(5) dt.13-01-2026
4/5
by taking this Court to various office orders passed by the
authorities, wherein the similarly situated persons have been
allowed salary for the period remained out of service, submits
that the petitioner is also entitled to similar benefit. The
necessary orders so passed by the authorities are appended with
the writ petition as Annexure-11.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State does not
dispute the factual position, and as also, the issues having been
put at rest under the orders of Hon’ble Division Bench, and also
directions were issued by the Co-ordinate Bench, for directing
the authorities to make payment for the period, the teachers
were forced to remain out of job.
5. In view of the fact that authorities are taking
discriminatory stand in the case of this petitioner, this Court has
no option but to direct the Respondent No. 8 – District
Programme Officer (Estb.), West Champaran, Bettiah, to
adjudicate the claim of this petitioner after verifying from the
records the bona fide and as also the entitlement at par with
other similarly situated person, in whose favour the salary has
been allowed, upon filing of representation, which would be
made by this petitioner appending all necessary documents for
adjudication, of his claim of salary, within a period of four
Patna High Court CWJC No.12258 of 2019(5) dt.13-01-2026
5/5
weeks’ from today, and on filing of such representation
necessary orders shall be passed within in a period of eight
weeks, and on adjudication, if the petitioner is found entitled for
salary in similar terms the same shall be entitled to the petitioner
within the same time.
6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U
Checking your session…