Patna High Court
Chand KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Collector’s order is not illegal; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Chand Kumari, a Panchayat Sevika, challenged the Collector of Samastipur’s order dated 24‑04‑2025 which set aside her reinstatement order and terminated her service. She claimed the Collector had not properly considered her documents and sought a certiorari to quash the order and mandamus for payment of salary arrears from March 2024 to September 2024 and April 2025. The State argued that the matter had been examined twice by the District Programme Officer and the Collector, who relied on an enquiry report and considered all aspects before passing the order. The High Court examined whether the Collector’s order was illegal or violative of natural justice. Finding no illegality in the Collector’s decision, the Court dismissed the writ petition but directed the District Programme Officer to verify the petitioner’s work before ordering any salary payment.
Issues considered
- Whether the Collector’s order setting aside the petitioner’s reinstatement is illegal and liable to be set aside by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary for the period March 2024 to September 2024 and April 2025.
- Whether the enquiry report and the Collector’s consideration satisfy the requirements of natural justice in administrative decisions.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- certiorari
- mandamus
- public employment
- reinstatement
- salary arrears
- administrative law
- collector
- district programme officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3322 of 2026
======================================================
Chand Kumari W /o Sikander Das, resident of village- Buniyadpur, Ward No.-
3, Block- Shivaji Nagar, Police Station-Hathouri, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principle Secretary, Dept. of Education, Bihar,
Patna
2. The Collector, Samastipur.
3. The District Program Officer, Samastipur
4. The C.D.P.O, Shivaji Nagar, Samastipur.
5. Sujata Kumari W/O Suman ji Jha, resident of village- Buniyadpur, Ward
No.-3, Block- Shivaji Nagar, Police Station-Hathouri, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vivek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-03-2026
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays
for and is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph
no. 1(i) of the writ petition to the effect that ‘Commissioner,
Samastipur’ shall be read as ‘District Magistrate, Samastipur’
which was typed inadvertently
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
3. The present writ petition has been filed with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3322 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
2/5
following relief/s :-
“i) A certiorari setting aside the
order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Appeal No. 6
of 2025(Annexure-11) passed by learned
District Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has illegally
terminated/retrenched from the work/service of
Panchayat Sevika.
ii) A mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent concerned to make
payment of arrear of salary from the period of
March 2024 to September 2024 and April
2025.
iii) And/or any other writ/writs,
direction/directions, order /orders relief/reliefs
for which the petitioner is found entitled.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner participated in the advertisement
process for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sevika in Ward
No. 3, Rahiyar North Gram Panchayat, under Shivaji Nagar
Prakhand, District Samastipur. Learned counsel further submits
that a merit list was prepared in which the petitioner was
selected and thereafter she was sent for training at the notified
Training Centre. It is further submitted that the petitioner
submitted her application along with all relevant documents
before the C.D.P.O., Shivajinagar, Samastipur on 01.03.2019
Patna High Court CWJC No.3322 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
3/5
and started discharging her duties sincerely. Subsequently,
respondent no. 5, namely, Sujata Kumari, filed a complaint
before the District Programme Officer, Samastipur in Case No.
247 of 2019 alleging therein that the petitioner was not residing
in Ward No. 3. Thereafter, the District Programme Officer,
Samastipur, after hearing the parties, passed an order in Case
No. 247 of 2019 on 13.07.2019 removing the petitioner from the
aforesaid post. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner challenged the said order dated 13.07.2019 before the
Collector, Samastipur by filing Appeal Case No. 438 of 2019,
whereupon the Collector, after hearing the parties, set aside the
order dated 13.07.2019 passed by the District Programme
Officer, Samastipur and remitted the matter for reconsideration
vide order dated 10.03.2023.
5. Learned counsel further submits that upon
reconsideration of the matter, the District Programme Officer
passed an order dated 11.01.2024 reinstating the petitioner on
the post of Panchayat Sevika. The said order was again
challenged before the Collector, Samastipur by filing Appeal
No. 6 of 2024. Thereafter, the Collector, Samastipur set aside
the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the District Programme
Officer, Samastipur in Case No. 438 of 2019/247 of 2019 vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.3322 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
4/5
order dated 24.04.2025. Learned counsel submits that the
documents produced by the petitioner were not properly
considered by the Collector and the order has been passed only
on the basis of the enquiry report. Therefore, it is submitted that
the impugned order requires interference by this Court and the
same be set aside.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State
submits that the dispute has been examined by the District
Programme Officer twice as well as by the Collector twice. It is
further submitted that an enquiry officer was appointed and the
enquiry officer has submitted a report after discussing the entire
factual situation. The Collector, while passing the impugned
order, has considered every aspect of the matter in detail.
7. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the
Collector, Samastipur, it transpires to this Court that there is
nothing illegal in the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Appeal
No. 6 of 2024 which warrants interference by this Court.
8. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
9. However, if the petitioner has worked during the
period for which payment has been claimed in the relief portion,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3322 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
5/5
the District Programme Officer, Samastipur is directed to pass
an appropriate order for payment of salary for the said period
only after verification that the petitioner had actually worked
during the said period.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11/03/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…