Patna High Court
BiharversusRohit Kumar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The termination was arbitrary and violative of natural justice, but because the contract had lapsed, reinstatement was not ordered; only wages for the remaining contractual period were payable.
Summary
Rohit Kumar, a contractual Special Survey Amin appointed in 2020, was served a show‑cause notice on 18‑01‑2023 for alleged obstruction of survey work and for inciting other contractual employees. He responded within 24 hours, but his contract was terminated on 19‑01‑2023 under Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Special Survey Honorarium Based Contractual Employment Rules, 2019, while more than 500 similarly situated employees received the same notice but were not terminated. The writ court set aside the termination, holding it stigmatic and violative of natural‑justice principles, and ordered reinstatement. The State appealed, and the Patna High Court upheld the lower court’s finding that a full departmental enquiry was required, but noted that the contract had expired on 31‑03‑2024, so reinstatement could not be ordered. Instead, the court directed payment of wages for the period 19‑03‑2023 to 31‑03‑2024 without interest and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- When does termination of a contractual employee require a departmental enquiry under natural‑justice principles?
- Whether the termination of the petitioner, while similarly situated employees were not terminated, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?
- Whether a contractual employee is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution?
- Whether an order of reinstatement can be enforced when the contractual period has already expired
Legislation cited
- Bihar Special Survey Honorarium Based Contractual Employment Rules, 2019 — s. Rule 8(4)
Subjects
- contractual employment
- termination
- natural justice
- discrimination
- Articles 14,16
- Article 311(2)
- departmental enquiry
- reinstatement
- wage payment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.835 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12384 of 2023
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Goverment of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road,
Patna- 800015.
3. The Director, Land Records and Survey Directorate, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Survey Training Center, Shastri
Nagar, Patna- 800023.
4. The Assistant Director, Land Records and Survey Directorate, Revenue and
Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Survey Training Center,
Shastri Nagar, Patna- 800023.
5. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Rohit Kumar, Son of Raman Bhagat, Resident of Village- Mohana, P.S -
Katra, Tehwara, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 843321.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
Mr. Ram Pravesh Nath Tiwari, AC to SC-25
For the Respondent : Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Sundar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SONI SHRIVASTAVA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 09-07-2026
The appellants by filing the instant Letters Patent
Appeal assail the judgment dated 22.04.2025, in C.W.J.C.
No. 12384 of 2023.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
2/11
Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition, ordered the
appellants/respondents to reinstate the services of the
respondent/petitioner forthwith and issue necessary orders
within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of the impugned Judgment. The
appellants/respondents, however, were also afforded liberty
to proceed against the respondent/petitioner, if so advised,
in accordance with law.
3. Before embarking into the merits of the matter,
a brief summation of the respondent’s/petitioner’s case is
essential.
4. As per the respondent/petitioner, pursuant to
an advertisement issued in the year 2019, he was
appointed as Special Survey Amin on 31.03.2020 by the
Appellant/Respondent No. 3, Directorate of Land Records
and Survey, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, on contractual basis, for a period of
11 months from the date of joining. The terms of the
Appointment Letter stipulated that, a fresh contract would
be issued after every 11 months, subject to satisfactory
performance. The services of the respondent/petitioner
were extended for the period 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2024. In
the course of the discharge of his duties, on information
allegedly received from the Settlement Officer, a show-
cause notice, bearing Memo No. 535, dated 18.01.2023 was
issued to the respondent/petitioner by the Assistant
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
3/11
Director, Land Records and Survey Directorate, directing
him to respond to the allegations of obstruction of the
works of special survey since 10.01.2023 on the call given
by the Bihar State Special Survey Contractual Employees
Association and for having instigated other contractual
employees to do the same. It is further averred that 500
other contractual employees also working as Special
Survey Amins were issued the exact same notice on the
same date. As required, he responded within 24 hours, on
19.01.2023, by email requesting inter alia that, the report
of the Settlement Officer, Begusarai be furnished to him, to
enable him to respond adequately.
4(a). Given the paucity of time, the other
contractual employees who also received the same show-
cause notice, furnished the exact same response as the
respondent/petitioner, however the contract of the
respondent/petitioner was terminated on 19.01.2023, for
purported violation of Rule 8(4) of the “Bihar Special Survey
Honorarium Based Contractual Employment Rules, 2019”
while the other similarly situated employees were
untouched.
5. The respondent/petitioner preferred an appeal
against the order of termination, before the Additional Chief
Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, on 24.01.2023. The Appellate
Authority, vide its order, dated 05.06.2023, rejected the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
4/11
appeal and upheld the order, dated 19.01.2023.
6. Thus aggrieved, the respondent/petitioner
approached the Writ Court, seeking inter alia for, quashing
of the order of termination bearing Memo No. 1073, dated
19.01.2023, and the order bearing Memo No. 4704, dated
05.06.2023. He also sought a direction for restoration of his
contractual service of Special Survey Amin with
consequential benefits.
7. The learned Single Judge, after giving due
consideration to the rival stances of the parties, opined that
more than 500 employees were issued identical show-
cause notices on the same allegations as that of the
respondent/petitioner and all had filed identical responses,
but only the service of the respondent/petitioner was
terminated, indicating the arbitrariness of the
appellants/respondents. While concluding the above, the
learned Single Judge garnered strength from the decision in
Anuj Shuckla vs. The BIADA & Ors.1 which was based
on the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dr. Vijaykumaran CPV vs. Central University of
Kerala & Others2 and Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab
National Bank and Others3.
7(a). The learned Single Judge thus propounded
that, when a stigmatic order of termination was issued
1 C.W.J.C. No. 18494 of 2024
2 (2020) 12 SCC 426
3 (2009) 2 SCC 570
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
5/11
against a contractual employee, it required a full-fledged
departmental enquiry, where the show cause and defence
taken by the employees should be considered and an
appropriate opportunity of hearing should be extended to
him. That, such opportunity was not afforded to the
respondent/petitioner. The orders of termination were
concluded to be stigmatic, thus both the impugned orders,
dated 19.01.2023 and 05.06.2023 were set aside and the
Writ Petition allowed with the directions as already reflected
hereinabove.
8. Before this Court, learned counsel for the State
appellants/respondents, reiterated the facts and contended
that, after the respondent/petitioner was appointed as
Special Survey Amin on 31.03.2020, his contract was
extended for two years from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2024
along with other similarly placed employees. That, the
respondent/petitioner instigated the other contractual
workers and obstructed the works of the special survey
operation, consequent upon which show-cause notice dated
18.01.2023 was issued to him, which he responded to on
19.01.2023 denying the charges, but raised unrelated
issues of non-payment and inadequate payments to
contractual employees. The respondent/petitioner failed to
explain the obstruction charges and sought to justify the
legitimacy of an unauthorized Association, resultant, his
contractual employment was terminated on 19.01.2023.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
6/11
The appeal filed by him was also rejected on 05.06.2023. It
was contended that Rule 8(4) of the “Bihar Special Survey
Honorarium Based Contractual Employment Rules, 2019”,
permits termination of employees based on adverse reports
or other evidence after giving a hearing. It was urged that,
due process was complied with respondent/petitioner
having been given sufficient opportunity of hearing. There
has, therefore, been no violation of the principles of natural
justice.
8(a). During the pendency of the appeal, the
respondent/petitioner had not only disobeyed the orders of
the seniors, instigated other employees but also threatened
higher officials of the department. Learned counsel
augmented his arguments by submitting that, the
appointment on contract basis stipulates that persons so
appointed shall not be considered as Government Servants
nor would they be entitled to facilities available to a
Government Servant. That, the decision of Anuj Shuckla
vs. The BIADA & Ors. (supra), relied upon by the learned
Single Judge, is distinguishable from the facts and
circumstances of the instant case. As the
respondent/petitioner was appointed on contractual basis,
he does not enjoy the protection of Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution of India. Refuting the claim of the
respondent/petitioner that he had been differentiated from
500 similarly situated employees, it was argued that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
7/11
allegation was not supported by documentary evidence,
and in any event, their services also stood terminated on
31.03.2024, by which time, the period of contract of the
respondent/petitioner had also concluded. Thus, the
impugned Judgment directing reinstatement of the
respondent/petitioner would cause grave injury and
injustice to the appellants/respondents and ought to be set
aside.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner
admitted the factual aspects put forth by the
appellants/respondents, however his specific contention is
that when the first show-cause was issued to him on
18.01.2023, the response was sought within 24 hours and
he responded on 19.01.2023 by email, which denied him
sufficient time to file his response. The allegations made
against him for ‘wrong justifications’ pertaining to the
Association cannot be countenanced as he had merely
clarified that, the Association was functioning in a
Constitutional framework. That, he had furnished a detailed
tabulation of the works executed by him and any delay in
the functioning of the special survey works was attributable
to the deficiencies in its functioning and not on account of
the respondent/petitioner. His appeal was also rejected
without due consideration. Similar show-cause was issued
to 500 contractual employees who responded like the
respondent/petitioner, but his services were terminated,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
8/11
which is revelatory of the fact that he was singled out and
discriminated against, which is in violation of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. That, the impugned
orders are not in consonance with Rule 8(4) of the “Bihar
Special Survey Honorarium Based Contractual Employment
Rules, 2019”, which requires the authority to provide an
opportunity of hearing. It was further contended that as the
principles of natural justice were not complied with, the
orders dated 19.01.2023 and 05.06.2023 be quashed and
his prayers be granted.
10. We have given due consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
We have also perused the pleadings, the documents on
record and the impugned Judgment.
11. So far as the conclusion of the learned Single
Judge regarding the stigmatic order of termination is
concerned, on careful perusal of the order, dated
19.01.2023, which is in Hindi and roughly translated into
English reads as follows; “From the above facts, it is clear
that he is unauthorizedly absent from his camp office and
this act of his is indicative of total arbitrariness, causing
hindrance in Government work, and defiance of orders of
higher officials. The accused has created hindrances in the
ambitious scheme of the Government, which is a time-
bound programme. Along with this, other employees have
also been provoked to disrupt work, which is contrary to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
9/11
the conduct of a qualified employee. Retaining such
employee in service creates an adverse impact on other
employees.
Therefore, under the provisions described in Rule-
8(4) of the “Bihar Special Survey Honorarium Based
Contractual Employment Rules, 2019”, the contractual
engagement of Shri Rohit Kumar, Special Survey Amin
(AEN03112), is terminated with immediate effect”.
12. From a reading of the above, it is clear that
certain aspersions were cast on the respondent/petitioner,
over and above the observations of his conduct. Hence, in
our considered view, no error arises on the finding of the
learned Single Judge regarding the observation that, when
a stigmatic order of termination was passed against a
contractual employee, it requires a full-fledged
departmental enquiry, which in the instant case was denied
to the respondent/petitioner.
13. In addition to the above, we are also of the
considered view that, although 500 similarly situated
employees had been issued show-cause notice on the exact
same lines as the respondent/petitioner, and the 500
employees had also responded in the same language as the
respondent/petitioner, blindsiding the similarity of their
responses to that of the respondent/petitioner, they were
afforded the privilege of continuing their contractual term
until it was completed, however the services of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
10/11
respondent/petitioner were terminated forthwith. Although,
to augment and justify this circumstance, learned counsel
for the appellants/respondents had argued that the
contractual employment of the 500 employees were
subsequently terminated, records reveal that such
termination was on completion of their period of contract
and not their services having been truncated before the
period of contract was over.
14. In view of the foregoing observations, we are
of the considered view that there is no reason to differ from
the observations made by the learned Single Judge. The
impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
22.04.2025, in C.W.J.C. No. 12384 of 2023 is accordingly
upheld.
15. However, bearing in mind the lapse of time
and the employment of the respondent/petitioner being
contractual, the period of contract no longer survives,
having lapsed on 31.03.2024. In such circumstances, for
the period from 19.03.2023 up to 31.03.2024, he cannot be
reinstated, as ordered by the learned Single Judge.
Consequently, it is ordered that he be paid his wages,
without addition of any interest for the period 19.03.2023
to 31.03.2024, as that was the period of his then existing
contract, which admittedly had been extended for two
years from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2024.
16. With the above observations and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.835 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
11/11
modifications, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed
and disposed of.
17. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
I Agree.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) (Meenakshi Madan Rai, CJ)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 02.07.2026
Uploading Date 09.07.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.