Patna High Court
MJC/652/2020 of Savindra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.652 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4594 of 2017 ====================================================== Savindra Kumar, S/o Bhikham Prasad Sahu, R/o Village- Hajiyapur, Ward No. 9, P.O.- Gopalganj, P.S.- Gopalganj,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.652 of 2020
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4594 of 2017
======================================================
Savindra Kumar, S/o Bhikham Prasad Sahu, R/o Village- Hajiyapur, Ward No. 9, P.O.- Gopalganj, P.S.- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj, At Present Posted as Assistant Teacher at D.A.V. Middle School, Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna namely Mr. R.K. Mahajan, I.A.S.
2.
The Director Primary Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna namely Ranjit Kumar, I.A.S..
3.
The D.E.O. Gopalganj Dist.- Gopalganj, namely Mr. Sanghmitra Verma.
4.
The D.P.O. (Establishment) Gopalganj, namely Anil Kr. Dwivedi.
5.
The Block Education Officer Block- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj, namely Lalan Singh Chauhan.
... ... Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Bishwash Vijeta, Advocate
Mr. Ram Naresh Jha, Advocate
For the State
:
Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, GP-17
Mr. S.K. Ranjan, AC to GP-17
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
19-08-2026 The present contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner for compliance of the writ order dated 17.10.2019, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4594 of 2017, whereby learned writ Court has upheld the appointment of the petitioner and directed the respondents to take appropriate decision in regard to payment of salary to the petitioner in the light of circular of the State Government vide Memo No. 679 dated 14.04.2016 and shall not take steps for recovery of any amount already paid to the petitioner.
2. This writ order was passed in the light of order dated 20.11.2018, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10990 of 2013, wherein similar issue was decided.
3. It transpires that the final order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10990 of 2013 dated 20.11.2018 was challenged in L.P.A. No. 234 of 2020, in which the order of the writ Court was upheld. However, it was learnt by the LPA Court that salary attached to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date of appointment was not paid to the petitioner. But it was observed by learned LPA Court that extending service and monetary benefits was not the subject matter of C.W.J.C. No. 10990 of 2013. The issue involved in the writ was approval of the petitioner by the State Government. Hence, the LPA Court found no fault on the part of the petitioner. However, it was held that the appellant-State have not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2018, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10990 of 2013.
4. It was further held that regarding extending service and monetary benefits to the respondent, she was given liberty to approach the concerned authority or Minority Institution and the State-Appellate Authority and Minority Institution were to resolve her issue relating to extending service and monetary benefits with reference to her application or representation to be submitted and the same was to decide within a reasonable period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
5. It clearly transpires that validity of the appointment of the petitioner was upheld by the writ Court and the same was not interfered with by learned LPA Court. However, the concerned authority were given liberty to take decision regarding consequential benefits to the petitioner.
6. From perusal of supplementary show cause, it transpires that in compliance of the orders of the writ Court as well as LPA Court, order dated 21.11.2025 was passed in which, amongst other things, Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar has directed the District Education Officer, Gopalganj and Management Committee of D.A.V., Middle School, Gopalganj were given direction to make payment after consideration. However, it has also directed the District Education Officer, Gopalganj and Management Committee of D.A.V., Middle School, Gopalganj to cancel the illegal appointment of the petitioner.
7. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP-17 for the State.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction passed by Director, Primary Education vide order dated 21.11.2025, is in the teeth of the orders of the writ Court as well as LPA Court, because both the Courts have upheld the validity of the appointment of the petitioner and the same cannot be disturbed. Hence, the order dated 21.11.2025, passed by Director, Primary Education will be ineffective.
9. However, learned AC to GP-17 for the State submits that vide order dated 21.11.2025, passed by Director, Primary Education, order of the writ Court has been complied with. Till the date of order, payment of salary etc. has been also paid to the petitioner. It is the discretion of the concerned authority to take any fresh action regarding extension of service or termination of the same. Hence, no contempt is made out as per the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. I find that in view of the relevant orders of the writ Court as well as LPA Court, the appointment of the petitioner is found to be valid and till he has worked, he is entitled to get salary and other service benefits and hence, cancellation of appointment of the petitioner prior to the order dated 21.11.2025 will be in the teeth of the orders of the writ Court as well as LPA Court. However, the concerned authority has discretion to pass any order regarding continuation of the service as per law. However, if the authority takes any adverse action against the petitioner, he has every right to challenge the same in the appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum.
11. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
shoaib/- (Jitendra Kumar, J) U