Patna High Court
Devendra Kishore SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court dismissed the writ application, holding that the payment of remuneration on the basis of 26 days per month as per the 2017 Revenue Board guideline is lawful.
Summary
The petitioner, a former defence personnel serving as Security In‑charge for the Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, claimed that his salary from November 2018 to March 2021 was calculated on the basis of 26 days per month instead of the full 30 or 31 days. He sought a writ directing the respondents to pay the difference for each month. The respondents relied on a letter dated 29‑March‑2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Board, which expressly prescribed payment for 26 days per month and argued that the payment method was lawful. The petitioner did not contest the validity of the 2017 guideline in a rejoinder. After considering the parties’ submissions and the 2017 directive, the Court found no illegality in the respondents’ method of calculation and dismissed the writ application.
Issues considered
- What is the correct basis for calculating monthly remuneration – 26 days as per the 2017 Revenue Board guideline or the full 30/31 days per month?
- Does the 2017 letter issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Board, constitute a valid administrative rule governing salary computation for the petitioner?
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- remuneration calculation
- administrative guideline
- agricultural produce marketing board
- security personnel
- salary dispute
- Revenue Board directive
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.470 of 2022
======================================================
Devendra Kishore Singh Son of Deepnarayan Singh Resident of Village-
Gangauli, P.S. Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra presently posted as
Security/Guard-Incharge at Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
(Dissolved), Sardha, Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Agricultural Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Agricultural Product Commissioner, Department of Agricultural,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Administrator, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (Dissolved),
Pant Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna.
4. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
5. The Special Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, the Agricultural Produce
Marketing Committee (Dissolved), Sardha, Chapra, District Saran at Chapra.
6. The Competent Authority relates to the Agricultural Produce Marketing
Committee (Dissolved), Sardha, Chapra, District Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Amit Narayan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr. Prasad (GP-14)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that being a
Ex-Defence personnel, he joined the Security and Intelligence
Services whereby he was engaged for working as a Security
Incharge in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Board at
Chapra. He continued to work in the said capacity for a few
years, however thereafter, as per the case of the petitioner, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.470 of 2022(4) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
respondent Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
(Dissolved) engaged several of the security personnel including
the petitioner vide Office Order no.60 dated 4.6.2005
(Annexure-2).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has continued
to work in the said capacity from November, 2018 to March,
2021, however payment of remuneration has been made by the
Special Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Agricultural
Produce Marketing Committee (Dissolved) calculating the
number of days at the rate of 26 days every month instead of 30
or 31 days per month. It is submitted that the respondents be
directed to make payment of full month counting 30 or 31 days
in place of 26 days every month.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents in reference to
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 and 5
and more particularly a copy of the letter dated 29.3.2017 of the
Deputy Secretary, Revenue Board, Bihar, Patna brought on
record as Annexure-G to the counter affidavit submits that as
per instructions contained therein, the payment has to be made
at the rates mentioned therein ie 26 days for the work done
every month. It is thus submitted that there is no illegality in the
payment made and no merit in the instant writ application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.470 of 2022(4) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
5. It may be mentioned here that no rejoinder to the
averment made in the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the
guidelines/directions contained in letter dated 29.3.2017 issued
under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Board,
Bihar, Patna.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the material on record and especially
the guidelines contained in the letter dated 29.3.2017 passed by
the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Board, Patna, the Court finds no
merit in the instant application.
7. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U
Checking your session…