Patna High Court
Sudhihar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The impugned order does not affect the appellants' rights and contains no illegality; therefore the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellants Sudhihar Kumar and five others filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging a single judge's order that directed the petitioners (two teachers) to file a fresh representation before the District Programme Officer for payment of salary arrears dating from 03‑08‑2015. The petitioners had sought a declaration that the order denying their salary claim was illegal and violative of Article 23 of the Constitution, relying on earlier Supreme Court judgments. The Court examined whether the order interfered with the appellants' rights or was perverse, and noted that the order merely granted procedural liberty to the petitioners without adjudicating the merits. Finding no illegality, perversity, or infringement of the appellants' rights, the Court held that the District Programme Officer retains discretion to consider any representation. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and any pending interim applications were also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the single judge's order directing petitioners to file a representation infringes the appellants' rights.
- Whether the order is ultra vires or illegal in view of the petitioners' claim for salary dues.
- Whether the pending complaint of another candidate can lawfully bar payment of salary to the petitioners.
- Whether the order violates Article 23 of the Constitution.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the limited scope of the impugned order in a Letters Patent Appeal.
Subjects
- salary arrears
- government teachers
- non‑payment of salary
- Article 23
- Letters Patent Appeal
- District Programme Officer
- procedural representation
- constitutional rights
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.61 of 2026
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14166 of 2025
======================================================
1. Sudhihar Kumar Son of Ruplal Mahto, resident of village- Aliganj, P.O. -
Aliganj, P.S.- Sikandara, District- Jamui, Bihar.
2. Ravindra Kumar, Son of Rambriksha Yadav, resident of Village- Akaunadih,
P.O. - Akaunadih, P.S.- Muffassil, District- Nawadah, Bihar.
3. Rita Kumari, daughter of Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of vill P.O. -
Fatehpur, P.S.- Akbarpur, District- Nawadah, Bihar.
4. Pankaj Kumar, Son of Bijay Chaudhary, resident of village- Prasad Bigha,
Nawadah, P.S.- Nawadah, District- Nawadah, Bihar.
5. Saista Khatoon, daughter of Md. Sakil Ahmad, resident of Village-
Gondapur, P.O. - Gondapur, P.S.- Nawadah, District- Nawadah, Bihar.
6. Ram Pravesh Kumar, Son of Shankar Mahto, resident of village- Darkha,
P.O.- Darkha, P.S.- Sikandara, District- Jamui, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Nawadah.
4. The District Programme Officer (Est.), Nawadah.
5. The Block Education Officer, Akbarpur, District- Nawadah.
6. Sindhu Rani, daughter of Ramanugrah Singh, resident of village- Orhanpur,
Post Office- Nawadah, Police Station- Muffasil, District - Nawadah,
presently posted as Block Teacher, Government Middle School,
Mahanandpur, Block- Akbarpur, District- Nawadah.
7. Purushottam Kumar, Son of Girijinandan Singh, resident of village-
Gopalpur, Police Station -Akbarpur, District- Nawadah, presently posted as
Prakhand Teacher in National Middle School, Akbarpur, Block- Akbarpur,
District- Nawadah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Bhola Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (02)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court L.P.A No.61 of 2026 dt.26-03-2026
2/5
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 26-03-2026
The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellant-Sudhihar Kumar challenging the order dated
02.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.
14166 of 2025. Such writ petition was filed by Sindhu Rani and
Purushottam Kumar, who are the respondent nos. 6 and 7 in this
L.P.A .
2. As it appears, the writ petition was filed by the
petitioners seeking for the following relief(s):-
“(i) For setting aside the impugned order
bearing Memo No.120 dated 21.06.2025, passed in
Complaint Case No.03 of 2024 by learned District
Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nawada,
(Annexure-P/8), whereby in pursuant to liberty
granted by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7458 of 2024
vide order dated 13.08.2024 in batch cases giving
liberty to the petitioners to move before District
Appellate Authority first for redressal of grievance
for non-payment of salary of the working period
since 03.08.2015 to till date and accordingly,
petitioner filed Case No.03 of 2024 before the
District Appellate Authority, Nawada which has been
disposed of without passing final order on the issue
of payment of due salary since 03.08.2015 during
which petitioners have discharged duty but by virtue
of impugned order claim of petitioners have been
denied in pretext of pendency of one complaint being
Case No.03 of 2025 filed by the unsuccessful
candidates raising the issue of validity of
appointment of petitioners but till date appointment
of petitioners have not been cancelled and as such
impugned order is bad in eye of law as also contrary
to Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) For directing the respondents
Patna High Court L.P.A No.61 of 2026 dt.26-03-2026
3/5
concerned to pay the due salary of petitioners for
working period i.e. 03.08.2015 till date in view of
settled proposition of law by Hon’ble Apex Court in
judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341 (Man
Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh) as well as
2024(1) PLJR (SC) 176 (Radheshyam Yadav Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh) as also in view of Memo
No.734 dated 08.07.2022 issued by the Respondent
State itself specially with regard to payment of salary
of working period and despite that non payment of
the same in pretext of pendency of case filed by
another person is not tenable in the eye of law.
(iii) For any other relief(s) for which
petitioners are found entitled to in the eye of law.”
3. The learned Single Judge while disposing the writ
petition by the impugned order has been pleased to hold as
follows:-
“6. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed
to file a fresh representation before the District
Programme Officer (Establishment) Nawada, giving all
details of the period for which their salaries are to be
paid by the authorities, along with supporting
documents. On such representation being filed, the
District Programme Officer (Establishment) Nawada
shall be obliged to take a final decision thereon. If it is
found that the petitioners have been discharging duties
from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 03.08.2015,
the salary as applicable to the said post shall be paid to
the petitioners without any delay.
7. The entire exercise must be completed
within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of
such representation by the petitioners.”
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits
that, although they were not party to the writ petition filed by
the petitioners, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is
likely to affect their right; therefore, the L.P.A. may be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.61 of 2026 dt.26-03-2026
4/5
entertained. He further argues that the petitioners had earlier
approached this Court seeking a similar relief in CWJC No.
17775 of 2015, which was disposed of on 07.02.2018 with
certain directions. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, the
appellants are likely to be adversely affected.
5. After perusing the impugned order, we find that
only liberty has been granted to the petitioners to file a
representation before the District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Nawada. If such a representation is filed, it
shall be considered by the said officer, and if it is found that the
petitioners were discharging their duties from the date of initial
appointment, i.e., 03.08.2015, the salary applicable to the post
shall be paid to them without any delay.
6. Nothing said in this order, in our humble view,
affects the right of the appellants; and the learned Single Judge
has also not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of
the writ petitioners. Therefore, it shall be entirely within the
discretion of the District Programme Officer (Establishment),
Nawada to consider such representation, if filed, and dispose of
the same in accordance with law.
7. In view of the limited scope of interference in
Letters Patent Appeal, and since we find no perversity or
Patna High Court L.P.A No.61 of 2026 dt.26-03-2026
5/5
illegality in the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere
with the same.
8. Accordingly the L.P.A stands dismissed.
9. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…