Patna High Court
Birjashankar PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that the earlier order had been complied with and the petitioners were not entitled to the claimed salary, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Summary
A group of former Special Police Officers filed a writ petition seeking a direction to quash a police superintendent's order denying their due salary and to compel payment with interest. The petitioners relied on an earlier 2019 writ order that allowed them to claim salary based on a duty command, provided they applied within four weeks and the superintendent would decide within eight weeks. The State argued that the petitioners' services were limited to one year, not extended as per the applicable rules, and that the matter had already been considered and rejected by a committee and a contempt court. The court noted that the superintendent had complied with the 2019 order and that the petitioners' claim was dismissed by the committee for lack of entitlement. Consequently, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Superintendent of Police is obligated to pay the petitioners' salary and honorarium after the earlier writ order.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary given that their services were not extended as per the governing rules.
- Whether the earlier contempt proceedings and committee findings preclude further relief in the present writ petition.
Subjects
- salary
- special police officer
- writ petition
- contempt proceedings
- government liability
- service extension
- honorarium
- public service rules
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5303 of 2026
======================================================
1. Birjashankar Prasad S/o Late Jagnarayan Prasad, R/o village Rukindhi,
P.S.Goh, District-Aurangabad
2. Ved Prakash, S/o Late Shri Dudheshwar Singh, R/o village Goh, P.S.Goh,
District-Aurangabad.
3. Anil Sharma, S/o Late Mahendra Sharma, R/o village Dadpi, P.S.Goh,
District-Aurangabad.
4. Samsher Ansari, S/o Late Hasmuddin Ansari, R/o Goh P.S.Goh District-
Aurangabad.
5. Ram Pravesh Paswan, S/o Late Munarik Paswan, R/o village Dingrahi,
P.S.Goh District-Aurangabad.
6. Umesh Paswan, S/o Late Ruplal Paswan, R/o village Panduki, P.S.Goh,
District-Aurangabad.
7. Mahendra Yadav @ Mahendra Kumar, S/o Late Jaigobind Singh, R/o village
Neema P.S.Goh District-Aurangabad.
8. Sanjeet Kumar@Sanjit Kumar, S/o Late Seetaram Singh, R/o village Khaira
Mohan, P.S.Goh District-Aurangabad.
9. Jairam Yadav, S/o Late Chandradeep Yadav, R/o village Aseyas P.S.Goh
District-Aurangabad.
10. Ram Kalesh Yadav, S/o Late Janeshwar Yadav, R/o village Baxar P.S.Goh
District-Aurangabad.
11. Devendra Singh, S/o Raghunath Singh, R/o village Mandwa P.S.Goh
District-Aurangabad.
12. Md. Faruque Ahmad, S/o Md. Khalil Ahmad, R/o Goh P.S.Goh District-
Aurangabad.
13. Bhusan Kumar, S/o Late Rameshwar Singh, R/o village Seikhpura P.S.Goh
District-Aurangabad.
14. Brajesh Singh @ Brajesh Kumar, Brajesh Singh@Brajesh Kumar(M) aged
about 40 years, S/o Late Lal Bahadur Singh, R/o village Bazar Verma
P.S.Goh District-Aurangabad.
15. Sunil Kumar Paswan, S/o Late Marachu Paswan, R/o village Dewaraha
P.S.Goh District-Aurangabad.
16. Kunjbihari Choudhary, S/o Shri Shyam Lal, R/o village Gamhari P.S.Goh
District-Aurangabad.
17. Bilas Choudhary, S/o Late Bideshi Chouudhary, R/o village Chauthaiya
P.S.Salaiya District-Aurangabad.
18. Sukhdeo Chouhan, S/o Late Tuleshwar Chouhan, R/o village Pirthu
P.S.Salaiya District-Aurangabad.
19. Sachchida Nand Singh, S/o Late Ram Pravesh Singh, R/o village Dosarai
(Sado Saray) P.S.Salaiya District-Aurangabad.
20. Naresh Paswan, S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Paswan, R/o village Pirthu
P.S.Salaiya District-Aurangabad.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
2/6
21. Md Shamsuddin Ansari, S/o Late Hasmuddin Ansari, R/o Goh P.S.Goh
District-Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director general of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
5. The Officer-In-Charge, Goh Police Station, Aurangabad.
6. The Officer-In-Charge, Salaiya Police Station, Aurangabad.
7. The Officer-In-Charge, Kasma Police Station, Aurangabad.
8. The Officer-In-Charge, Uphara Police Station, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (26)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ has been filed for issuance of
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing the
minutes of the meeting dated 1.12.2019 vide Memo No. 5834
and order dated 2.12.2019 passed by the Superintendent of
Police, Aurangabad (Respondent No.5), whereby and
whereunder the respondents authority have denied the payment
of due salary for the work done by the petitioners, who were
working as Special police Officer (S.P.O) in different police
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
3/6
station, in the district of Aurangabad and further for payment of
due salary with an statutory interest to the petitioners. And also
for necessary relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions for
which the petitioner will be entitled in the law as well as in the
facts of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners had earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
6649 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated
21.05.2019 with liberty to the petitioners to approach the
Superintendent of Police by filing their claim on the basis of
duty command issued in their favour. It was also directed that if
such an application is made within four weeks from today, the
Superintendent of Police (Respondent no.5) will be obliged to
dispose it of by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of
eight weeks thereafter. Counsel submits that thereafter, the
petitioners moved before the contempt court by filing the M.J.C.
No. 4198 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated
22.04.2025 and the contempt petition was closed. Counsel
submits that the petitioners thereafter moved again before this
Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ petition, on the ground
that command has been issued to the petitioners, therefore, at
least the period for which command has been issued and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
4/6
petitioners worked, the payment be made.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
categorically submits that the claim which the petitioners are
raising here has already filed by the State in this regard, and the
contempt court has considered those aspect of the matter.
Counsel submits that the services of the petitioners were taken
only for one year and their services were never extended. The
matter has been considered before the committee but, the
committee has rejected the same.
5. Upon hearing the parties, it is relevant to quote the
observation made by the contempt court in M.J.C. No. 4198 of
2019 vide order dated 22.04.2025, which states as follows:-
“This contempt petition has been filed
alleging violation of the order dated
21.05.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6649 of
2017, wherein this Court had passed the
following order:
“The petitioners would be at liberty to
approach the Superintendent of Police
by filing their claim on the basis of duty
command issued in their favour. If such
an application is made within four
weeks from today, the Superintendent of
Police (respondent No. 5) will be
obliged to dispose it of by a reasoned
and speaking order within a period of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
5/6
eight weeks thereafter.
The writ application stands disposed
of.”
2. Opposite Party No.5 has filed the show
cause, wherein, in paragraph No.10 it has
been stated as under:
“10. That it is humbly and respectfully
submitted that on the basis of attending
facts and circumstances of the case,
petitioners are not entitled to any
honorarium since they were neither re-
appointed nor their services was
extended as per rule by the competent
authority after 31.08.2011. Accordingly
in the unanimous opinion of the
committee the petitioners claim is not
considerable.
In view of the matter, the application of
the petitioners deserves to be dismissing
outright.”
3. On perusal of paragraph No.10 of the show
cause filed by the Opposite Party No.5, I find
that the order dated 21.05.2019 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 6649 of 2017 has been complied
with by the Opposite Party No.5.
4. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands
closed and disposed of.”
6. This Court is of the view that after filing of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
6/6
earlier writ petition, matter was well considered by the
committee and due to non-extension of the period, the claim of
the petitioners has been rejected. As such, this court is not
inclined to interfere in this matter.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U
Checking your session…