Patna High Court
Saroj Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that the District Education Officer must dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within three months of receipt of this order, after granting a hearing, and if the petitioner is entitled to relief, the officer must grant it within a further three months.
Summary
The petitioner, a Panchayat Teacher, filed a writ petition alleging that the education authorities had unlawfully withheld his salary from January 2024 onward, violating his constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 23. He relied on a representation dated 20‑08‑2025 submitted to the District Education Officer and on a directive from the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, to release payments. The petition sought numerous reliefs, including a declaration of illegal salary denial and directions to pay arrears. The respondents did not contest the limited prayer for disposal of the pending representation. The High Court, with the parties' consent, ordered the District Education Officer to dispose of the representation within three months after hearing the petitioner and, if relief is warranted, to grant it within a further three months.
Issues considered
- Whether the education authorities erred in withholding the petitioner's salary from January 2024 onward.
- Whether the directive of the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, mandating payment of salaries is binding on the district authorities.
- Whether the non‑payment of salary violates the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
- Whether the authorities acted arbitrarily, mala fide, or in abuse of power in denying salary.
- Whether the pending representation filed on 20‑08‑2025 should be disposed of within a fixed time frame after hearing.
Subjects
- salary non‑payment
- service law
- fundamental rights
- Article 21
- Article 23
- writ jurisdiction
- administrative law
- arbitrary action
- employment grievance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2984 of 2026
======================================================
Saroj Kumar Singh Son of Prabhunath Singh, Resident of Village-
Dharambari, P.O.- Dharambari, P.S. and District- Gopalganj, Presently
working as Panchayat Teacher at New Primary School, Chak Pahar, Harijan
Toli, Block-Baikunthpur, Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S.- Baikunthpur,
District- Gopalganj.
5. The Headmaster, New Primary School, Chak Pahar, Harijan Toli, Block and
P.S.- Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bakhari, Block and P.S.-
Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr.Prashant Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (22)
For the State : Mr.Raghwendra Kumar, SC-22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
2. With the consent of the parties, this writ application
is being disposed of at this stage itself.
3. In the present writ application, the petitioner has
prayed for the grant of following reliefs:
“(i) Whether the respondent authorities
Patna High Court CWJC No.2984 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
2/5
had committed serious error of record while
withholding the payment of salary of petitioner
from January, 2024 to till date against his
continuous work in absence of reasonable/ valid
reasons?
(ii) Whether the authorities had failed to
appreciate that the Additional Chief Secretary,
Education Department, Govt. of Bihar referring
the order of Human Rights Commission had
directed the authorities for not to stop the
payments usually or without adverse but they
denied maliciously?
(iii) Whether the authorities had failed to
appreciate that taking work and denying salary is
exploitation/ Beggar, which violates the mandate of
Article 23 of the Constitution of India?
(iv) Whether the authorities had failed
to appreciate that the non-payment of salary for
working period is suffered from voice of
discriminations as identical persons/ employees
are receiving their salary against respective post
but he was denied maliciously and unreasonably?
(v) Whether the authorities had failed to
appreciate that the payment of arrear and current
salary is no longer a bounty, which dependent
upon pleasure of concern authorities rather it is in
ambit of 'Right of Property', which are the
constitutional rights and no one can permitted to
escape from responsibilities caste upon them?
(vi) Whether the respondent authorities
had failed to appreciate that the Additional Chief
Secretary, Education Department, who is highest in
the hierarchy of administration within department
had specifically and categorically directed the
District authorities within State for non-denial of
payments for working periods consequently the
authorities must oblige to release the payments
against the works executed without if and but?
(vii) Whether the authorities had failed
Patna High Court CWJC No.2984 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
3/5
to appreciate that withholding or denial of salary
is worse than suspension for reasons that even in
case of suspension concern employee provided
subsistence allowances for survival of family as
non-payment of salary to an employee amounts to
depriving him of his livelihood and such person
cannot be allowed to starve at the hands of the
authorities without any justified reason?
(viii) Whether the respondent authorities
had failed to appreciate that non-payment of salary
is against the statutory provisions, constitutional
obligations and provisions of service jurisprudence
for which they are not suppose rather bound to
obliged provisions in later and spirits or it was
meant for in larger interest?
(ix) Whether the respondents had failed
to appreciate that salary is essential for survival
and payment of salary to the employees is only to
eke out their livelihood during their service. If
whole or part of the salary is deferred, it amounts
to denial of right to life guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India?
(x) Whether actions of the respondents
are malafide, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as
well as abuse of power and authority due to wrong
and ulterior motive?
(xi) Whether the actions of the
respondent are otherwise bad in law and facts,
which called upon necessary legal interference?”
4. After advancing some argument, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that for seeking the aforesaid reliefs,
the petitioner has filed a representation dated 20.08.2025 which
has been brought on record by way of Annexure- P/2 series
before the District Education Officer, Gopalganj. He further
Patna High Court CWJC No.2984 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
4/5
submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if an appropriate
direction be issued to the District Education Officer, Gopalganj
to dispose of the pending representation of the petitioner within
fixed time frame after giving liberty of hearing to the petitioner.
5. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel
for the petitioner is not objected to by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State.
6. Considering the limited nature of prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ application is
disposed of directing the District Education Officer, Gopalganj
to dispose of the pending representation filed by the petitioner
dated 20.08.2025 within three months from the date of receipt /
production of a copy of this order, after giving liberty of hearing
to the petitioner.
7. Needless to emphasize that the final order which
shall be passed by the District Education Officer, Gopalganj
should be a reasoned and speaking order. It is further made clear
that if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief which the
petitioner has claimed through the representation, then the same
should be extended to the petitioner within a further period of
three months from the date of passing of the final order by the
District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2984 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
5/5
8. With the aforesaid observation/direction and liberty
granted, this writ application is disposed of. All pending
interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also be deemed to have
been disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kundan/-
U
Checking your session…