Patna High Court
Ram Bahadur PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The High Court held that the Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the petition and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of dismissal.
Summary
Ram Bahadur Pandit, a retired Ward Attendant, filed a writ petition seeking re-fixation of his pay and related benefits under various government memos and Resolution No. 630. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, noting that the petitioner filed the suit three years after retirement. On appeal, the High Court examined the doctrine of delay in service‑related claims and relied on Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, which allows relief for a continuing wrong that does not affect third‑party rights, such as pay fixation. The Court held that the petitioner’s claim falls within this exception and that the dismissal was not justified. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was directed for fresh disposal.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches is justified in a claim for re‑fixation of pay of a retired employee.
- Whether the claim constitutes a continuing wrong that does not affect the rights of third parties, thereby exempting it from the doctrine of laches.
- Whether the respondents’ actions violate Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution.
Subjects
- pay fixation
- service law
- delay
- laches
- continuing wrong
- constitutional law
- Article 14
- Article 21
- Article 300A
- retired employee
- Bihar health department
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.85 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18586 of 2024
======================================================
Ram Bahadur Pandit Son of Late Mishri Pandit Resident of Vilage-Madha
P.S. Salakhua P.O. Salakhua Bazar District-Saharsa.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director in Chief, Health Services, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Saharsa.
4. The Medical Officer (In-charge) Primary Health Centre, Salakhua, District-
Saharsa.
5. The Accountant General (A and E)-II, Beerchand Patel Path, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Harsh Anuj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-9
Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG-9
For the A.G. : Mrs. Ritika Rani, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 18-02-2026
The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Ram
Bahadur Pandit, challenging the order dated 09.12.2024 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
18586 of 2024 in dismissing his writ petition on the ground of
delay and laches. The said writ petition was filed by the
petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
“1. That this is an application for
issuance of an appropriate writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) to the
respondents to re-fix pay of the
petitioner in view of the Govt.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.85 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
2/6
guidelines issued vide Memo No.
2424 dated 11.03.2013 vide memo
No. 7780 dated 30.07.2013 and
vide letter No. 6573 dated
24.07.2015 which has been issued
following the provisions of Clause
7(B)(ii) of resolution No. 630
dated 21.01.2010 and further
direct the respondents to ensure
the entire consequential benefits
with the interest @ 10% per
annum.”
2. In the writ petition the petitioner has indicated what
are the important issues involved in the case which are as
follows:-
“2. That the followings are the
important issues involved in the
present case:
(i) Whether the actions
of the respondents to not follow
the different guidelines in respect
of the case of the petitioner are
not said to be arbitrary and
discriminatory?
(ii) Whether the actions
of the respondents to give more
pay to the later joined employee
i.e. Junior to the petitioner are
said to be justified.
(iii) Whether the
actions of the respondents are not
violative of Article 14,21 and
300A of the Constitution of
India?”
3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel
for the petitioner observed as follows:-
“3. Since the petitioner has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.85 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
3/6
already retired from service on
31.01.2021 and has filed this
petition in the year 2024 claiming
for re-fixation of his scale of pay
in the post of Ward Attendant from
the year 2007 on the basis of
resolution No. 630 dated
21.01.2010 issued by the Secretary
Resources, Finance Department,
Government of Bihar, I am of the
view that there is an inordinate
delay in approaching this Court
by the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.”
4. The learned counsel for the appellant placed
reliance on a decision rendered in the case of Union of India &
Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, wherein it
is held as follows:-
“ 7. To summarise, normally, a
belated service related claim will
be rejected on the ground of delay
and laches (where remedy is
sought by filing a writ petition) or
limitation (where remedy is sought
by an application to the
Administrative Tribunal). One of
the exceptions to the said rule is
cases relating to a continuing
wrong.Where a service related
claim is based on a continuing
wrong, relief can be granted even
if there is a long delay in seeking
remedy, with reference to the date
on which the continuing wrong
commenced, if such continuing
Patna High Court L.P.A No.85 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
4/6
wrong creates a continuing source
of injury. But there is an exception
to the exception. If the grievance
is in respect of any order or
administrative decision which
related to or affected several
others also, and if the reopening
of the issue would affect the
settled rights of third parties, then
the claim will not be entertained.
For example, if the issue relates to
payment or refixation of pay or
pension, relief may be granted in
spite of delay as it does not affect
the rights of third parties. But if
the claim involved issues relating
to seniority or promotion, etc.,
affecting others, delay would
render the claim stale and
doctrine of laches/limitation will
be applied. Insofar as the
consequential relief of recovery of
arrears for a past period is
concerned, the principles relating
to recurring/successive wrongs
will apply. As a consequence, the
High Courts will restrict the
consequential relief relating to
arrears normally to a period of
three years prior to the date of
filing of the writ petition.”
5. The learned counsel submits that since the issue
relates to the re-fixation of the pay and its payment to the
appellant and it does not affect the rights of the third parties, in
spite of the delay in approaching the Court, the matter should
have been entertained and should not have been dismissed on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.85 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
5/6
the ground of delay and laches. Moreover, in the writ petition,
sufficient explanation has been given, as to why the delay has
occurred on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court
seeking necessary relief.
6. The learned counsel for the State supported the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective
parties and keeping in view the ratio laid down in the case of
Tarsem Singh (supra) and since the matter relates to re-fixation
of the pay of the appellant and its payment causing a continuing
source of injury and it does not affect the rights of any third
parties, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not
justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay
and laches.
8. There is perversity in the impugned order and the
Division Bench, in the Letters Patent Appeal, can correct the errors,
if it is found that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge
suffers from perversity or is palpable unreasonable. Accordingly, we
are inclined to quash the same and the order is hereby set aside.
9. The matter is directed to be placed before the
Bench as per the roster. Since the appellant has retired in the
meantime, it is expected that the matter should be listed at an
Patna High Court L.P.A No.85 of 2025 dt.18-02-2026
6/6
earliest for disposal.
10. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed off.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…