Patna High Court
Surendra PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus and instead directed the petitioner to file a representation for the authorities to adjudicate the claim on its merits.
Summary
The petitioner, Surendra Prasad, a former Assistant Teacher appointed on 16‑02‑2012, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and education officials to pay his salary arrears for the period he served until 16‑08‑2013. He alleged that, unlike similarly situated teachers (e.g., Ehsaan‑ullah and Rajendra Mahto), his salary was never paid after his services were terminated. The State argued that if other teachers received salary, the petitioner’s claim should be considered by the appropriate authority on a similar basis. The Court held that the petitioner must first file a detailed representation, referencing the earlier representation and supporting documents, so that the District Education Officer can adjudicate the claim on its merits. The Court directed that the representation be filed within four weeks and, if found similar, the salary benefits be extended within a further eight weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without issuing a mandamus.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of salary arrears for his service as Assistant Teacher.
- Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to pay the arrears.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim should be decided by applying parity with similarly situated teachers.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- salary arrears
- teacher appointment
- parity principle
- administrative law
- service termination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.718 of 2026
======================================================
Surendra Prasad Son of Sadhu Prasad Resident of Village- Dumduma, P.S.-
Daudpur, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Saran.
4. The District Education Officer, Saran.
5. The District Program Officer, Saran.
6. The Block Education Officer, Garkha, District- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (03)
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs :-
“For issuance of a writ in the nature of writ
of mandamus for commanding the Respondent
Authorities to pay the arrears of Salary to the
Petitioner who worked since 16.02.2012 as
Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School,
Dhauaira, Garkha, Saran under General Teacher
appointed vide Letter No.3-09/2010-268 issued by
the District Education Officer, Saran and for a
direction/directions to the Respondents to pay the
salary of the work done by the Petitioner as 66
Teachers from the list of 34540 Teachers are being
paid as there was specific Order issued by the
Principal Education Secretary and for directing the
Respondent to recognize the Degree of B.Ed. from
Patna High Court CWJC No.718 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
Rashtriya Patrchar Sansthan, Kanpur which was
acquired in the year 1994 which was valid before
the implementation of NCET Act and for issuance
of any other order / orders, relief/reliefs to which
the Petitioner may in the facts and circumstances
of the case be entitled too.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
appointment of this petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher
and subsequent verification of certificates, the services of the
petitioner is said to have been terminated after having allowed
this petitioner to discharge his duties from 16.02.2012 to
16.08.2013.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that after termination
of the services of this petitioner, the petitioner was never taken
back in service but the salaries for the period this petitioner had
worked, has not been paid while other similarly situated persons
have been paid salaries and their names have been indicated in
the representation filed by the petitioner, which is appended
with the writ petition as Annexure-P/12, who are Mr. Ehsaan-
ullah and Mr. Rajendra Mahto.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submits that if similarly situated persons have been allowed
salary and the case of petitioner is similar to them, then his case
may also be directed to be considered by the appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.718 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
3/3
authority for extending benefits on similar basis by fixing a
time-line.
6. Considering the submission of the parties, this
Court finds it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file
appropriate representation giving reference to the earlier
representation, which is appended with the writ petition with all
necessary documents for adjudication of the claim and as also
by indicating the names with supportive materials, if any, in
respect of those to whom similar benefits have been extended,
so that the matter may be adjudicated by applying parity with
such teachers, who have been allowed salary, within a period of
four weeks from today and on filing of such representation, it is
expected that the District Education Officer, Saran, shall
adjudicate this claim strictly by considering his case on its own
merits and if the case is found similar, then the benefits shall be
extended in favour of the petitioner, within a further period of
eight weeks.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U
Checking your session…