Patna High Court
Jalim PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court declined to grant the writs and directed the petitioners to seek relief on the salary deduction through a representation before the District Magistrate, thereby disposing of the petition.
Summary
Petitioners Jalim Paswan and his son Om Prakash Paswan filed a writ petition seeking (i) the appointment of the son as Chaukidar in place of his deceased father under Rule 5(7) of the Bihar Chaukidar Cadre (Amendment) Act, and (ii) a refund of salary recovered for four months that the father continued to work after his retirement on 31 March 2016, alleging that the authorities failed to inform him of his retirement date. The State of Bihar contended that a prior judgment in Devmuni Paswan v. State of Bihar, which struck down the same provision as violative of Articles 14 and 16, was binding, and that the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP against that judgment. The court noted that the father’s continued service after retirement was not in dispute, but the recovery of salary could be challenged by filing a representation before the District Magistrate. Accordingly, the court directed the petitioners to approach the District Magistrate for a decision on the salary deduction, with a three‑month deadline for a reasoned order. No order was issued regarding the appointment of the son, and the writ application was disposed of without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents are liable to appoint the son as Chaukidar in place of his father under Rule 5(7) of the Bihar Chaukidar Cadre (Amendment) Act.
- Whether the recovery of salary for the period April to July 2016, after the father's retirement, is lawful and warrants a refund.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the appointment and salary refund.
Subjects
- appointment
- mandamus
- salary recovery
- post‑retirement benefits
- constitutional law
- Articles 14
- Articles 16
- representation
- District Magistrate
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1586 of 2022
======================================================
1. Jalim Paswan S/o Late Kushar Paswan, Resident of Vilalge Mathwliya, P.O.
Daulatpur P.S. Arrah Mufassil, District Bhojpur.
2. Om Prakash Paswan S/o Sri Jalim Paswan Resident of Village Mathwliya,
P.O. Daulatpur P.S. Arrah (Mufassil), District Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Additional Secretary, Grih Arakshi Vibhag,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Arrah.
4. The Circle Officer, Sadar Anchal, District-Bhojpur.
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Arrah Mufassil Police Station, District-Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. N.H. Khan, SC- 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs:
“1. I. For issuance of writ
in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ / order /
direction to the Respondents to
appoint Petitioner no.2 in place of his
father Petitioner no.1 for the post of
Chaukidar in Circle office, Sadar
Arrah, Bhojpur in the light of Rule
Patna High Court CWJC No.1586 of 2022 dt.16-03-2026
2/4
5(7) of Bihar Chaukidar Cadre
(Amendment) Act.
II. For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ / order / direction commanding
the respondents to refund the amount
recovered from petitioner no.1, the
salary paid to him against the
services/ duty rendered by him for the
extra four months as the respondents
failed to communicate / intimate
petitioner no.1 his official date of
retirement and kept him engaged in
duty from April 2016 to 31st July 2016.
III. For issuance of any
other appropriate order / orders,
direction / directions as your lordship
may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
3. So far as the prayer of the petitioners to appoint
petitioner no.2 in place of his father (petitioner no.1) on the post
of chaukidar is concerned, reliance is placed by learned counsel
for the petitioners in the notification dated 5.3.2014 of the State
Government as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar
submits that by judgment in the case of Devmuni Paswan vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1586 of 2022 dt.16-03-2026
3/4
State of Bihar & Ors.; 2023 (2) PLJR 425, this Court has set
aside the said provision/Rules holding the same to be violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further the SLP
preferred in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment in
the case of Devmuni Paswan (supra) has also been dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that petitioner no.1 who was working as a chaukidar
was scheduled to retire on 31.3.2016, however not being aware
of the same nor having been informed by the respondent
authorities, he continued to work for several months thereafter.
6. It is submission on behalf of the petitioners that
the fact that the petitioner no.1 continued to work is not in
controversy. However, the respondents recovered the salary paid
to the petitioner no.1 for the period April, 2016 to 31 st July, 2016
from the post retirement benefits payable to the petitioner no.1.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
as per oral instructions received, petitioner no.1 has died during
pendency of the instant application.
7. Without going into the merits of the case, so far
as recovery of the salary for the excess period that the petitioner
no.1 worked after his retirement is concerned, it is observed that
the petitioner no.1 and/or his heir i.e. the petitioner no.2 will be
Patna High Court CWJC No.1586 of 2022 dt.16-03-2026
4/4
at liberty to file a representation before the District Magistrate,
Bhojpur, Arrah (respondent no.2) with respect to the deduction
of salary for the excess period that the petitioner no.1 had
worked.
8. On filing of the same, the respondent no.2 shall
consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a
period of three months from the date of its filing.
9. In case the representation of the petitioner finds
favour with the respondent concerned, the amount recovered
from the post retiral dues of the petitioner no.1 shall be returned
to him or his heirs and in case the representation does not find
favour with the respondent no.2, a reasoned order for the same
shall be communicated to the petitioner no.2 within the
aforesaid period.
10. The writ application stands disposed off.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.3.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…