Patna High Court
Kaushal Kumar DubeyversusThe State of Bihar through
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The High Court held that the dispute over the petitioner’s alleged work and salary entitlement must be resolved by a civil suit, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Kaushal Kumar Dubey, filed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash a February 4 2025 order of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Department that rejected his representation on the ground that he had not worked between March 1 2023 and December 5 2023, and to prevent interference with his salary. The petitioner claimed to have worked during that period and submitted documentary proof, while the Department maintained that he had not worked. The Court noted the contradictory pleadings and evidence and held that the factual dispute over the petitioner’s work could not be decided by a writ but required a civil suit. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to file a title suit in a competent civil court within 30 days, making the concerned parties parties to that suit, and ordered the civil court to determine the work‑related facts. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 04‑02‑2025 rejecting the petitioner’s representation can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the respondents may lawfully interfere with the petitioner’s salary pending determination of his work status.
- Whether the High Court should direct the petitioner to resolve the factual dispute through a civil title suit.
Subjects
- certiorari
- writ petition
- salary dispute
- employment
- title suit
- Panchayati Raj Department
- civil court
- government employee
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7384 of 2025
======================================================
Kaushal Kumar Dubey Son of Lalta Prasad Dubey Resident of 28B/104
Allapur Allahabad Police Station George Town, District-Allahabad, (U.P).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Special Work Officer, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner- Cum-Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Asif Kalim (AC to AAG-12)
For the Resp. no.4 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Upadhyay, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Zila Parishad,
Buxar.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance
of a writ in the nature of certiorari for the following relief/s:-
“I. For quashing the order dated 04.02.2025
by which the representation of the petitioner
has been rejected on the ground that the
petitioner has not worked with effect from
01.03.2023 to 05.12.2023 on the basis of ‘No
Work No Pay' and hence the representation of
the petitioner has been rejected in light of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7384 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
2/4
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15105 of 2024 by
which a direction was issued by the Hon'ble
High Court that the petitioner will file fresh
representation before the Additional Chief
Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna within 30 days
from today stating all his grievances and he
shall pass an order on the representation
within 90 days thereafter. If the petitioner has
found eligible for payment then the payment
be made within the said period and if not, the
Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna will
pass a reasoned and speaking order in this
matter.
II. Further for issuance of a writ/writs
directing the respondents not to interfere with
the due salary of the petitioner when the
petitioner has worked and all his work with
absentee for the period 01.03.2023 and
October, 2023 to 05.12.2023 has been sent
through e-mail to the respondents from time to
time.
III. Further for any other relief/reliefs to
which the petitioner is found entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7384 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
3/4
petitioner had moved earlier before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
15105 of 2024 which was disposed off vide order dated
07.10.2024 directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation
before the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Bihar, Patna within 30 days stating all his
grievances, who shall pass order on petitioner’s representation
within 90 days thereafter. Counsel submits that in compliance of
the direction made by this Court, the Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar has passed order dated
04.02.2025 contained in Memo No. 2043, but the petitioner is
not satisfied with the said order and therefore, filed the present
writ petition. Counsel further submits that by the said order
dated 04.02.2025 contained in Memo No. 2043, the Panchayati
Raj Department, Government of Bihar has denied any work
done by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner has
ample proof of having worked during the said period and has
annexed those documents substantiating the same.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the order dated 04.02.2025 contained in Memo No.
2043 passed by the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Bihar is a reasoned order and each and every aspect has been
discussed in the said order that the petitioner has not worked
Patna High Court CWJC No.7384 of 2025(3) dt.07-04-2026
4/4
during the relevant period.
5. It is a unique situation before the Court in which
respondent authorities are claiming that the petitioner has not
worked but, on the other hand, petitioner is claiming that he has
worked and he has documentary proof also.
6. In the light of contradictory pleadings and the
documents, this Court hereby directs the petitioner to file a title
suit before the competent civil court within 30 days from today.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to produce all the documents by
making all the concerned as party and the competent civil court
shall ascertain that whether the petitioner has worked during the
relevant period or not. The competent civil court is directed to
dispose of the title suit upon filing, as early as possible.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U
Checking your session…