Patna High Court
Umakant SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court grants the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the District Magistrate within 30 days, with any delay condoned.
Summary
The petitioner, Umakant Singh, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 24‑09‑2025 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Grievance Redressal Authority, alleging non‑payment of arrears and irregularities in his promotion to Supervisor. He contended that despite multiple representations to the District Magistrate and the Block Development Officer, the amounts due were not credited and his promotion was denied in favour of another candidate. The State argued that the petitioner could instead appeal the order before the District Magistrate, who is the first appellate authority. The High Court, without delving into the merits, granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the District Magistrate within 30 days and ordered any delay in filing to be condoned. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of following the direction to approach the District Magistrate.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the order of the Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Grievance Redressal Authority.
- Whether the petitioner may be directed to prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate as the first appellate authority.
- Whether the court can condone any delay in filing the appeal.
Subjects
- writ petition
- quashing order
- appeal
- administrative law
- remuneration dispute
- promotion grievance
- district magistrate
- procedural liberty
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5703 of 2026
======================================================
Umakant Singh S/o Suraj Dev Singh, Resident of Village- Hirapur, Police
Station- Dawath, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The Additional District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas at Sasaram.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer -cum- Grievance Redressal Authority,
Bikramganj Sub Division, Rohtas at Sasaram.
7. The Block Development Officer, Dawath Block, Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (08)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-04-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer-cum-Grievance Redressal Authority,
Bikramganj Sub-Division, Rohtas at Sasaram. With further
prayer to direct the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram or to
the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Grievance Redressal Authority,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5703 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
2/4
Bikramganj Sub Division, Rohtas at Sasaram to reconsider the
case of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and to consider the reliable documents produced by
the petitioner.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
initially petitioner was appointed by the Block Development
Officer, Dawath Block, Rohtas at Sasaram vide order contained
in Memo No.04 dated 19.01.2017. The name of petitioner was
appearing at serial No.14 of the order dated 19.01.2017.
Counsel submits that the petitioner was discharging the duty as
per guidelines and under the direction of the controlling
authority. The payment at the initial stage was made to the
petitioner @ Rs.30,000/- lump sum in the account of Bank of
India, Bikramganj Branch, Rohtas at Sasaram. Counsel submits
that petitioner is entitled for higher remuneration for Rs.500/-
for the last nine months and the said amount of Rs.15,400/- has
not been paid to him, in this regard the petitioner had made
representation dated 19.05.2025 vide Annexure-P/3 to District
Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. Learned Counsel submits that further representation
has been made to the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Grievance
Redressal Authority, Bikramganj Sub Division, Rohtas at
Patna High Court CWJC No.5703 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
3/4
Sasaram on 05.07.2025. Counsel submits that the Block
Development Officer, Dawath Block, Rohtas at Sasaram has
issued letter on 25.07.2017 and transferred the amount for
payment to the ICICI Bank, Rohtas at Sasaram Branch in which
the name of the petitioner has figured at serial No.30, but the
said amount has not been credited in the respective account of
the petitioner. Counsel further submits that in this regard the
petitioner has also made representation to the Block
Development Officer, Dawath, Rohtas at Sasaram, for irregular
selection of the Supervisor on 18.10.2022. Counsel further
submits that petitioner has made application for selection to the
post of Supervisor on 01.08.2023. All the local bodies
recommended the petitioner for Supervisor but petitioner was
not selected and instead thereof some other person have been
selected. Counsel submits that his case has not been considered
at all and when petitioner filed objection, then vide order dated
26.06.2025 his claim was rejected indicating that other one
Kiran Kumari was selected as Supervisor.
5. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that petitioner has basically challenged the order passed
in his complaint by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Grievance
Redressal Authority, against which there is a liberty to him to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5703 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
4/4
prefer appeal before the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram,
being the first appellate authority.
6. In this view of the matter, this Court without
entering into the merit or demerit of the case, grants liberty to
the petitioner to prefer appeal against the said impugned order
dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure-P/1) before the District Magistrate,
Rohtas at Sasaram, within 30 days from today. The District
Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, after hearing all concerned shall
pass order within reasonable time. The delay, if any, in filing
the appeal is directed to be condoned.
7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition
is disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…