Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Hemchandra ThakurversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed as it is barred by inordinate delay and laches, making it untenable for writ jurisdiction.

Summary

The petitioner, Hemchandra Thakur, a former In‑charge Head Clerk appointed in 1976 and retired in 2012, filed a writ petition seeking fixation of his pay in the Rs 5,000‑8,000 scale from August 1996 and payment of arrears up to July 2012. He claimed that a 1999 memorandum had granted such pay revision to Head Clerks, but the benefits were never extended to him. The State argued that he had already received pay enhancements under the First and Second ACPs and that he was never substantively promoted to Head Clerk, rendering his claim untenable. The court noted that the petitioner made his representation only in 2017, long after retirement, and filed the writ in 2024, resulting in a delay of about 34‑35 years. Relying on the principles of laches and the need for prompt assertion of rights, the court held that the petition suffered from gross delay and could not be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to fixation of pay in the Rs 5,000‑8,000 scale with effect from 01‑08‑1996.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary from 01‑08‑1996 to 31‑07‑2012.
  • Whether the petition is barred by delay and laches.

Subjects

  • pay fixation
  • arrears of salary
  • writ petition
  • delay
  • laches
  • state employee promotion
  • pay revision

Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8753 of 2024
     ======================================================
     Hemchandra Thakur son of Late Mukhteshwar Thakur Resident of Ward no.
     3, Kaithinia, P.O.- Kaithinia, District- Madhubani.

                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                         Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
     Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
     Government of Bihar, Patna, Government of Bihar.
3.   The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.   The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
5.   The District Magistrate, Madhubani.
6.   The Additional District Magistrate, Establishment, Madhubani.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr.Amit Kumar Jha, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :       Mrs. Shally Kumari, AC to SC-24
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

      Date : 12-02-2026
               Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

      counsel for the State

                  2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

      following relief/s:

                                       “(i) ……. for directing the respondent
                            authorities to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay-
                            scale Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 01.08.1996.
                                       (ii) For issuance of order, direction or with
                            of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for
                            directing the respondent authorities to pay the arrears
Patna High Court CWJC No.8753 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
                                           2/4




                                of salary to the petitioner from 01.08.1996 to
                                31.07.2012.
                                           (iii) For any other order, orders, or
                                directions which your lordship may deem fit and
                                proper in the interest of equity, justice, and good
                                conscience.”


                     3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

         petitioner was appointed on 21.09.1976 and superannuated on

         31.07.2012 from the post of In-charge Head Clerk. It is further

         submitted that the pay scales of State Government employees

         were revised to bring them at par with Central Government

         employees with effect from 01.01.1996, though the financial

         benefits were made payable from 01.04.1997. Learned counsel

         submits that the petitioner was granted the benefit of pay

         revision with effect from 01.08.1996.

                     4. Learned counsel further submits that vide Memo

         No. 868 dated 12.11.1999, the petitioner along with other Head

         Clerks of the district was granted the pay scale of Rs. 5,000–

         8,000. It is submitted that the employees concerned had

         represented before Respondent No. 4, pursuant to which

         Respondent No. 4 directed Respondent No. 5 to obtain approval

         of the need-based posts of Head Clerk from the Finance

         Department. However, despite such direction, the consequential

         benefits were not extended to the petitioner. The petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.8753 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
                                           3/4




         thereafter retired in the year 2012.

                     5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the

         other hand, raises a preliminary objection and submits that the

         petitioner, who was appointed on 21.09.1976, has already been

         granted the benefit of enhancement of pay scale under the First

         ACP with effect from 09.09.1999 upon completion of 24 years

         of service. It is further submitted that the Second ACP was also

         granted with effect from 21.09.2000. Learned counsel for the

         State contends that the petitioner was never substantively

         promoted to the post of Head Clerk by the competent authority,

         and therefore, the claim for fixation of pay scale equivalent to

         that of a regularly promoted Head Clerk with effect from

         01.08.1996, along with payment of alleged outstanding dues, is

         legally unsustainable.

                     6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, it

         transpires that the admitted position is that the petitioner joined

         service on 21.09.1976 and superannuated on 31.07.2012. The

         petitioner is stated to have made a representation only in the

         year 2017, i.e., after about five years of retirement, and the

         present writ petition has been filed in the year 2024. In crux the

         cause of action for the petitioner has developed in 1999 but he

         moved before the Court in 2024 i.e. delay of about 34-35 years.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.8753 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
                                                        4/4




                      The writ petition, therefore, suffers from gross delay and laches.

                      Such inordinate and unexplained delay cannot be entertained in

                      exercise of writ jurisdiction

                                  7. As such, the present writ petition stands dismissed.




                                                  (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          25/02/2026
Transmission Date       NA


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.