Patna High Court
Baccha Prasad RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Regular service cannot be granted retrospectively; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
Baccha Prasad Ray, a former Charged Amin in the Bihar Road Construction Department, was accused under IPC sections 364 and 34 in 2006 and retired in 2015 while the case was pending. He was exonerated in 2019 and subsequently sought regularization and pension benefits, filing a representation that was rejected by a departmental memo dated 08‑10‑2021. He filed a writ petition (CWJC No.1534 of 2022) seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the memo and obtain the benefits, relying on the precedent set in Mobina Khatoon v. State of Bihar. The State argued that retirement before the conclusion of the criminal case precludes any relief. The Court held that regular service cannot be granted retrospectively and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a government employee who retired before the final disposal of a pending criminal case can be regularized and receive consequential benefits upon exoneration.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 364
Subjects
- regularization
- pension
- criminal charges
- government service
- writ petition
- certiorari
- exoneration
- retirement
- service law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1534 of 2022
======================================================
Baccha Prasad Ray S/o Late Bhagwat Ray, resident of Harpur Kothi, P.O.-
Panditpur, P.S.-Janta Bazar, District-Saran -841224.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief cum Special Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Muzaffarpur
Division, Bihar.
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Sheohar Division,
Sheohar, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harendra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad (SC-20)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
i. For issuance of writ of
certiorari to quash Reasoned Order dt.
08.10.2021 (Annexure- 6) by which wrongly
interpreting of state govt. circular,
Petitioner's clam of regularization and
consequential benefits have been rejected.
ii. For issuance of appropriate
writ(s) order(s) and direction to respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.1534 of 2022(3) dt.19-01-2026
2/4
to consider Petitioners case of
regularization and consequential benefit to
this Petitioner in the light of Annexure-1,
which has been provided to other persons.
iii. For any other relief(s) for
which petitioner may be found entitled in the
facts and circumstances of this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits
that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Charged Amin on
08.04.1982 under the Road Construction Department and
became accused on 17.01.2006 in Bikram P.S. Case No. 17 of
2006 dated 18.01.2006 under Sections 364 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. Subsequently, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2015
but was exonerated from the criminal charges on 26.09.2019.
Thereafter, the petitioner moved before this Hon’ble Court in
CWJC No. 307 of 2019, in which, vide order dated 04.07.2019,
liberty was granted to him to represent before the authority
concerned for his grievance and respondent No. 3 is directed to
consider the petitioner’s case in the light of Mobina Khatoon vs.
The State of Bihar reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 1015. Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner moved before the concerned authority for
his grievance by filing a representation, and his representation
was disposed of vide Memo No. 6827(E) dated 08.10.2021,
which is the order impugned here.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1534 of 2022(3) dt.19-01-2026
3/4
4. Counsel further submits that a sympathetic view
may be taken for the petitioner as he is an elderly person of 72
years, and the benefit of pension may be granted to him.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that in the present peculiar circumstances, when the
petitioner retired prior to the conclusion of the criminal case, no
relief could be granted to him.
6. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the
record, it transpires that paragraph No. 5 of the Memo No.
6827(E) dated 08.10.2021 is most relevant for the petitioner,
which states as follows:-
"ववत ववभाग के सं कलप सं खया-
10710 वदनांक-17.10.2013 के कंवडका-4 (iv) मे
भी izko/kku है वक- वजन कायरभावरत कवमरयो के
ववरद कोई मु कदमा दायर वकया गया हो या
वजनके ववरद izFke दृषटया izekf.kr Hkz’Vkpkj
के आरोप लं वबत हो या वजनके ववरद ववभागीय
कायरवाही चल रही हो, उनके ववरद उपयु रकत
काररवाई समापत होने तक वतरमान आदे श के
अनतगरत वनयवमत सथापना मे नहीं वलया
जाएगा। यवद मु कदमा / ववभागीय काररवाई के
वनसतार के पूवर कायरभावरत पद पर ही वे
से वावनवृ त हो जाते है , तो उनहे वनयवमत से वा मे
आने का लाभ भूतलकी प्रभाव से नहीं वदया जा
सकेगा।"
Patna High Court CWJC No.1534 of 2022(3) dt.19-01-2026
4/4
7. Here, in the present case, admittedly the petitioner
retired on 31.01.2015, whereas his criminal case was pending
against him, due to which his service could not be regularized.
The criminal case concluded on 26.09.2019, and the conclusion
of the criminal case took place about four years after his date of
retirement. In view of the contention mentioned above, regular
service cannot be treated with retrospective effect.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the
present case and the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…