Patna High Court
Dr. Prabhash KumarversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that it would not entertain the writ applications and directed the petitioner to seek redress for the July payment by filing a representation before the SPMU.
Summary
The petitioner, a livelihood specialist, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to extend his service contract, alleging that similarly situated persons had their contracts extended, and also sought a certiorari to quash a letter dated 1‑August‑2016 which informed him that his contract would not be extended. He further claimed that he had not received payment for July 2016, which the letter indicated would be released by the State Project Manager Unit (SPMU). The court noted that the SPMU was not a party to the proceedings and therefore its direction in the letter could not be examined. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ applications and directed the petitioner to file a representation before the SPMU for the pending July payment, specifying timelines for decision and payment. The court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the payment claim, leaving that to the concerned authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of his contract of service as a livelihood specialist.
- Whether the communication dated 1‑August‑2016 denying contract extension can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment for the month of July 2016.
Subjects
- contract extension
- writ of mandamus
- writ of certiorari
- payment of dues
- administrative law
- representation before authority
- public authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1749 of 2017
======================================================
Dr. Prabhash Kumar S/o Shri Bhola Prasad Yadav, R/o Village- Lalpatti, P.S.-
Triveniganj, PO- Baghla, District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through, the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary, Rural Development Deponent cum Chief
Executive Officer, Jeevika, Patna.
4. The State Project Managers and Project Managers, Patna.
5. The District Project Manager, Saharsa.
6. The Block Project Manager, Salkhua, Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajan Prakash, AC to GA-2
For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akshat Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pushkar Bhardwaj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 05-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief :-
“That is an application on behalf of
petitioner for issuance of a writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents to extend the contract
of services of petitioner as Livelihood specialist
(L.H.S) as the contract of similarly situated
persons have been extended whereas the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2017(5) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
petitioner has been left out arbitrarily and
petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ of
certiorari for quashing of the communication
made by letter no. 149 dated 1.8.2016 by which
the petitioner has been informed that the
contract of service of petitioner is not being
extended any further and petitioner further prays
for issuance of any other wart/writs order/orders
direction/directions which the Hon’ble Cannot
may deem and fit and proper.”
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
referring to letter dated 1.8.2016 (Annexure-5) of the District
Project Manager, District Project Co-ordination Unit, Saharsa
submits that the petitioner is not pressing the relief prayed for in
reference to the first part of the letter therein which states that
the contract of the petitioner’s service is not being extended any
further. Learned counsel however submits that the petitioner has
not been given the payment for the month of July, 2016 which
as per the said letter would be released as per the direction of
State Project Manager Unit (SPMU).
4. In response, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the respondent no.3 submits that SPMU not having been made
party respondent herein, the direction of SPMU which is
referred to in the letter dated 1.8.2016 is not known.
5. In view of the above, the instant application is
Patna High Court CWJC No.1749 of 2017(5) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation
before the authority concerned of the SPMU for the grievances
of payment for the month of July, 2016.
6. In case such a representation is filed within a period
of four weeks, the same shall be decided by the authority
concerned within a period of three months from the date of its
filing and the admitted amount shall be paid within the aforesaid
period.
7. In case the amount sought for is not found payable,
a communication in writing giving reasons shall be
communicated to the petitioner expeditiously.
8. It is made clear that the Court has not entered into
the merits of the case with respect to payment of the amount
being claimed for for the month of July, 2016 by the petitioner
which is to be decided by the authority concerned.
9. The application stands disposed of.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.