Patna High Court
Gajadhar PathakversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that, in the absence of a decided representation, the petitioner must file a fresh representation and the respondent must decide it within a stipulated period, leading to disposal of the writ petition.
Summary
Gajadhar Pathak filed a writ petition seeking a disability pension, the same pay scale as an RPF constable, and related benefits. He had earlier submitted a representation to the Commandant of the Railway Protection Force, Danapur, which remained pending. The Union of India argued that a time should be fixed for the Commandant to decide on the representation. The Patna High Court observed that the representation was old and no decision had been made, and therefore directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within four weeks and the Commandant to decide within six weeks thereafter. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a disability pension and the same pay scale as an RPF constable.
- Whether the court can direct the filing of a fresh representation and prescribe a time‑frame for the respondent to decide.
Subjects
- disability pension
- Railway Protection Force
- writ petition
- administrative representation
- pension entitlement
- court direction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1738 of 2022
======================================================
Gajadhar Pathak Son of Sheo Muni Pathak, resident of Village - Bharakhar,
P.S. - Raghunathpur, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.
2. Director General, Railway Protection Force, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. I.G.-cum-Chief Security Officer, Eastern Railway RPF, Kolkata.
4. D.R.M. Eastern Railway, Danapur.
5. Divisional Security Commissioner, Eastern Railway, R.P.F. Danapur.
6. Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central, Railway, Danapur.
7. Commandant, R.P.F. Danapur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate
For the Union of India : Mr. Arun Kumar Satyamurti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Union of India.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed for the issuance of an
appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents for the
grant of disability pension to the petitioner, for giving same pay
scale as an R.P.F. Constable, and for the grant of all
consequential benefits.
3. Counsel further submits that for grant of the said
relief, the petitioner has filed a representation, which is pending
Patna High Court CWJC No.1738 of 2022(3) dt.05-01-2026
2/2
before the Commandant, R.P.F., Danapur, Khagaul, annexed as
Annexure-8 Series, but no decision has been taken as yet.
4. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that
a time may be fixed so that the said Respondent No. 7 may take
a decision on the representation of the petitioner.
5. In light of the submissions made above, it
transpires to this Court that the petitioner has filed a
representation on which no order has been passed as yet. Since
the said representation is very old, the petitioner is directed to
file a fresh representation before the Commandant, R.P.F.,
Danapur (Respondent No. 7) within four weeks, and
Respondent No. 7 is hereby directed to decide on the
petitioner’s representation within six weeks thereafter.
6. Accordingly, in view of the above directions, the
present writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…