Patna High Court
Savitri DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court declined to entertain the merits and ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation, directing the respondent to decide it within the prescribed time.
Summary
Savitri Devi, widow of the late Mandhata Prasad Singh who served as a Panchayat Sewak trainee from April to July 1999, alleged that she was never paid the salary due for the training period and subsequent posting, despite representations filed in 2018. She sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Bihar to regularise her husband’s service, pay the arrears, and consider the pending representations. The Court examined the petition but refrained from adjudicating the substantive claim. Instead, it directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department within four weeks, and ordered that the respondent decide the matter within two months, pay any due amount within one month, and provide a reasoned order if the claim is rejected. The Court emphasized that it was not passing on the merits, merely ensuring procedural compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the State to decide pending representations and pay salary arrears of a Panchayat Sewak.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the training period of her deceased husband.
- Whether the Court should entertain the merits of the service regularisation claim or limit its intervention to procedural directions.
Subjects
- mandamus
- service regularisation
- salary arrears
- Panchayat Sewak
- administrative law
- writ jurisdiction
- representation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19856 of 2025
======================================================
Savitri Devi Wife of Late Mandhata Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-
Barhonia, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Deputy Director-cum-Deputy Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj,
Bihar, Patna.
7. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.
8. The District Magistrate, Munger.
9. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Munger.
10. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, GA- 10
Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to GA- 10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs:
“1. (i) For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the responsible respondents for
a direction to regularize the service of the
husband of the petitioner namely Late
Patna High Court CWJC No.19856 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026
2/4
Mandhata Prasad Singh of the training
period of Panchayat Sewak and to pay the
salary in regular scale of pay of the post of
Panchayat Sewak with effect from the date
when the husband of the petitioner was
appointed to the post of Panchayat Sewak
and husband of the petitioner sent for
training with effect from 26.04.1999 to
22.07.1999 as after completion of training
vide Memo No.73 dated 30.12.2000 issued
by under the signature of Respondent No.10
the husband of the petitioner with other
Panchayat Sewaks were appointed on the
post of Panchayat Sewak in the pay scale of
Rs.3200-4900/- but the husband of the
petitioner was not paid salary of Panchayat
Sewak from 26.04.1999 to 22.07.1999
during service period and even after
retirement, and now husband of petitioner
has died on 16.06.2023.
(ii) For a direction to the
responsible respondents for considering the
representation dated 05.04.2018 given to the
Respondent No.01, representation dated
06.02.2018 given to the respondent No. 07
and representation dated 06.04.2018 given
to the Respondent 10 by the husband of the
petitioner with other panchayat sewaks and
to pay salary of her husaband for the period
of training of Panchayat Sewak till the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19856 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026
3/4
posting on the post of Panchayat Sewak i.e.
from 26.04.1999 to 30.12.2000, as the case
of the husband of the petitioner is fully
covered with the judgment of this Hon'ble
Court passed in CWJC No. 7935 of 1994
with CWJC No.4561 and 4025 of 1995 dated
27.07.1995.
(iii) For any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner is entitled to.”
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the representation filed by the husband of the
petitioner for the grievances raised in the instant application has
not been decided by the respondent authorities inspite of the
filing of the representations which have been brought on record
as Annexures-P/5 and P/6 to the writ application. It is thus
prayed that the writ application be disposed directing the
respondent concerned i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary,
Panchayat Raj Department, Patna (respondent no.2) to decide
the representation filed by the petitioner/her husband within a
reasonable time and to pay the consequential benefits.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the contents of the petition, the writ application
is disposed off directing the petitioner to file a fresh
representation before the respondent no. 2 within a period of
Patna High Court CWJC No.19856 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026
4/4
four weeks.
5. In case such a representation is filed, the
respondent no. 2 shall decide the same within a period of two
months from the date of its filing and any consequential amount
found payable to the petitioner on account of the benefit accrued
to her deceased husband shall be paid to the petitioner within a
period of one month from the date of disposal of the
representation.
6. In case the representation of the petitioner does not
find favour with the respondent authorities, a reasoned order for
the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within the
aforesaid period.
7. It is made clear that the Court has not entered into
the merits of the case of the petitioner which is to be decided by
the respondent concerned.
8. The writ application stands disposed off with the
above observations and direction.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U
Checking your session…