Patna High Court
Ashok KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn after the Court permits the petitioner to withdraw and file a representation.
Summary
Ashok Kumar, a former employee of the Bihar Public Health Engineering Department, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to recognize his full service of 33 years and grant full pension benefits, contending that the department had erroneously counted only 10 years of service. The petitioner alleged irregular postings and reversions that affected his pension entitlement. The State raised a preliminary objection, stating that the petitioner had not filed any representation, which is a prerequisite for a mandamus. The petitioner requested permission to withdraw the writ and file a representation before the concerned authority. The Court granted the permission to withdraw, and consequently dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued when the petitioner has not filed a representation before the authority.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed for lack of representation or can be withdrawn by the petitioner.
Subjects
- pension
- service length
- mandamus
- withdrawal of petition
- public health engineering department
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7562 of 2025
======================================================
Ashok Kumar Son of Late Bhagwan Mistry, resident of Shivasthan Colony
Rajgir, Police Station - Rajgir, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Patna
Circle, Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Bihar Sharif,
Nalanda.
5. The Accountant General Bihar, Patna, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. K.P. Gupta, GP-10
Mr. Satya Vrat, AC to GP-10
For Accountant General Bihar, Patna : Ms. Ritika Rani, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant
General Bihar, Patna.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs in the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the respondents to treat the full
length of service 33 years (32 years 7 month 18
days) and pay full pension and other pensionary
benefit to the petitioner in place of total to period
Patna High Court CWJC No.7562 of 2025(2) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
service counted by respondent 10 years 4 month 11
days but not paid pensionary benefit.
(ii) Further prayer to revise the pension
and pay arrear of pension with suitable interest
total length 32 years, 7 months and days in place
of 10 years 4 months and days.
On 20.7.1981 petitioner was appointed
as daily wager and on 17.3.1988 Nalyojak in work
charge establishment and promoted to the post of
work Sarkar on 27.5.1994 all of a sudden on
02.09.2002 his service was reverted to daily wager
on 16.07.2006 vide Memo No.716 the respondent
ordered to posted the petitioner on old post on
which he was working prior to issuance of
aforesaid order dated 02.09.2002 and accordingly
he was posted on 30.12.2016 vide order No. 235 on
the post of Keyman-cum-Chaukidar given all
benefits, all of a sudden on 07.07.2014 but they are
not giving full pensionary benefit treating his
joining on 1988.
(iii) Further for any other relief/ reliefs
in the facts and circumstances started above.”
3. Learned counsel for the State raised preliminary
objection and submits that the petitioner has demanded issuance
of a writ of mandamus, but no representation has been filed by
the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that it is a mistake on
the part of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7562 of 2025(2) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
4. In response thereto, counsel for the petitioner seeks
permission to withdraw the present writ petition in order to file
a representation before the concerned authority.
5. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.
6. Accordingly the present writ petition stands
dismissed as withdrawn.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…