Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Harendra Prasad Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4157 Patna

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4157 Patna
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2022

Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Harendra Prasad Singh on 1 August, 2022
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        Letters Patent Appeal No.177 of 2019
                                          In
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17735 of 2010
     ======================================================

1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

2. The Co-ordinator-cum-Chief Engineer, Tube Well Project, Muzaffarpur.

3. The Finance Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

4. The Chief Engineer, North Nalkup Prabhag, Muzaffarpur Minor Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Siwan.

... ... Appellant/s Versus Harendra Prasad Singh Late Janak Singh resident of Village- Dewapur, P.S. Barauli, District- Gopalganj.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Appellant/s    :     Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 9
     For the Respondent/s   :     Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 01-08-2022

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The State has filed this appeal. State is unable to apprise

this Court by giving dates and events properly, for example, in the

present case question for consideration is whether fixation of pay

of the respondent is in order or not?

3. Pursuant to Rules or order Department decided to extend

01.01.1996 revised pay, the respondent have been extended pay @ Patna High Court L.P.A No.177 of 2019 dt.01-08-2022

of Rs. 4,000 - 6,000/- and it was sought to be recovered in the

month of June, 2009 and further due to internal communication

grievance of the respondent was rejected on 19.04.2010. At the

same time, date of retirement of the petitioner is stated to be in the

month of February, 2009. The respondent Harendra Prasad Singh

was holder of the post of Electrician and it falls under Group C

category. Faced with these material information, we find that there

is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge dated

20.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17735 of 2010. That apart

recently Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of

Kerala and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438 wherein it is held

that belated recovery is impermissible. In the light of Apex

Court's decisions in the case of The State of Punjab vs. Rafiq

Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 read with Thomas Daniel

vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438

appellants have not made out a case.

4. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant keep on

harping that the respondent was extended pay scale on

27.05.2006. Further, he has not apprised this Court as to whether

calculation of Rs. 4,73,000/- sought to be recovered in the absence

of determination of calculation and no material have been placed Patna High Court L.P.A No.177 of 2019 dt.01-08-2022

on record so as to ascertain from 27.05.2006 to the year 2009, will

it be sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- in excess with reference to a Group C

employee or not? Therefore, appellant - State counsel is not in a

position to apprise this Court with the complete material

information. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed with cost of

Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). Cost shall be remitted in

Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna High Court

for the reasons that appeal has been filed in the absence of

complete material information.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant - State

submitted that respondent has not disputed the excess amount

stated to have been paid to the respondent. At the same time, the

aforesaid issue cannot be apprised unless the appellant who has

preferred the appeal satisfy the Court with reference to further

complete material information. Accordingly, the aforesaid

contention of the appellant stands rejected.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( Rajiv Roy, J) GAURAV S./-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          05.08.2022
Transmission Date
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter