Patna High Court
Dara Kumar Singh And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 10 April, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4269 of 2018
======================================================
1. Dara Kumar Singh S/o Suresh Singh, Resident of village- Bhuski, P.S.-
Matiyariya, District- West Champaran.
2. Kameshwar Kumar Singh, S/o Bansh Narayan Singh, Resident of Turkoliya,
P.S.- Matiyariya, District- West Champaran.
3. Sunila Devi, W/o Pundeo Kumar, Resident of village- Mathuhwa, P.S.-
Manpur, District- West Champaran.
4. Bhola Yadav, S/o Choukat Yadav, Resident of Village- Mathuhwa, P.S.
Manpur, District- West Champaran.
5. Rakesh Kumar Devnath, S/o Subal Devnath, Resident of Dudhoura Coloney,
P.S. Manpur, District- West Champaran.
6. Sanap Kumar Ghosh, S/o Anil Ghosh, Resident of Village- Dhokraha, P.S.
Manpur, District- West Champaran.
7. Nandu @ Nandlal Raut, S/o Mangni Raut, Resident of Village- Damrapur,
P.S.- Manpur, District- West Champaran.
8. Ramdeo Ram, S/o Buni Ram, Resident of Village- Tilojpur, P.S.- Manpur,
District- West Champaran.
9. Md. Maksud, S/o Soverati Mian, Resident of village- Chouhatta, P.S.
Manpur, District- West Champaran.
10. Santosh Mishra, S/o Late Awadh Kishore Mishra, Resident of Village-
Kamla Nagar, P.S.- Manpur, District- West Champaran.
11. Anil Kumar Shukla, S/o Vijay Shukla, Resident of Village- Chaksan, P.S.-
Manpur, District- West Champaran.
12. Uday Mahton, S/o Thakur Mahton, Resident of Village- Purainiya, P.S.-
Manpur, District- West Champaran.
13. Sheikh Faiyaz, Son of Sheikh Mohammad, Resident of Village- Sahnaula,
P.S. Manpur, District- West Champaran.
14. Yogendra Dwivedi, S/o Mahadeo Dwivedi, Resident of Village- Tikuliya,
P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran.
15. Rajeshwar Mahton, S/o Ramayan Mahton, Resident of Village Kharg
Pokhariya Noniya Tola, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran.
16. Dipak Kumar Raut, S/o Butan Raut, Resident of village- Chanpatiya Ward
No. 6, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home Police, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.
6. The Superintendent of Police, West Champaran, Bettiah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.4269 of 2018 dt.10-04-2025
2/5
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.P.N. Shahi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Irshad (AC to SC-1)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-04-2025
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and
Learned Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
"I. For quashing of the order contained in
Memo No.284 dated 13.05.2013 (annexed
as Annexure-1 series) issued by Respondent
no.5 and its consequential order contained
in Memo No.475 dated 27.01.2014 whereby
and whereunder, services of the petitioners
have been terminated and also a direction
has been issued to all the Officer In-charge
of the District to not take work from the
petitioners as Special Police Officers
(S.P.O).
II. For directing the respondent authorities
that after quashing of the aforesaid orders,
re-appoint/extend the services of the
petitioners and allow the petitioners to work
as Special Police Officers (S.P.O) as other
similarly situated persons have been
allowed to work as Special Police Officers
(S.P.O).
Patna High Court CWJC No.4269 of 2018 dt.10-04-2025
3/5
III. For any other relief or reliefs for which
the petitioners are entitled for."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners were entitled to be continued as Special Police
Officers (S.P.O), since the petitioners' initial engagement as
S.P.O. has been found to be useful for the district. Counsel
submits that there is a utility of the petitioners and stoppage of
payment for the said work which is not in accordance with law.
4. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the
present writ petition and submits that those SPOs were
appointed under a particular scheme which was ended and
further extension of this scheme has not been made by the
Central Government.
5. Both the parties jointly submits that a similar
matter has been decided by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No.11181 of 2014 (Suman Kumar Verma &
Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in which vide order dated
28.01.2019
, this Hon'ble Court has pleased to dismissed the writ
petition.
6. After hearing the parties and going through the
documents as well as the aforesaid judgment, it transpires to this
Court that the judgment mentioned above i.e. Suman Kumar
Verma & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) is relating
Patna High Court CWJC No.4269 of 2018 dt.10-04-2025
to the SPOs for the District- West Champaran. In the present
writ petition, the petitioners also belongs to former SPOs of the
District- West Champaran. The ratio laid down in case of Suman
Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra)
states as follows:-
"4. This Court is in agreement with the
submission advanced on behalf of the State.
The petitioners' initial engagement was for
a very brief period on contractual basis.
There is nothing on record to suggest that
the petitioners were ever paid any
remuneration after the period of contract
other than the correspondences dated
06.05.2013 and 18.11.2013 issued by the
Superintendent of Police to the District
Magistrate expressing oscillating views in
respect of utility of the petitioners as SPOs.
The competent authority, being the District
Magistrate under Section 19 of the Act,
therefore, relying upon the said
communications, has taken a final decision
not to reengage the petitioners. The final
decision of the competent authority is
17.12.2013 (Annexure A to the counter
affidavit.). The prayer made by the
petitioners is, therefore, not based on any
right as their whole existence was under a
contract and they cannot claim any right
Patna High Court CWJC No.4269 of 2018 dt.10-04-2025
beyond the terms of their contract of
engagement. More so in view of the fact that
a reasoned decision has been taken by the
competent authority not to engage their
services, keeping in view utility of the
services they are expected to perform.
5. Writ petition is devoid of merit and the
same is dismissed. "
7. This Court is fully agreed with the reasoning
assigned by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
particularly when the scheme has ended and the situation has
also changed, then continuation of such type of scheme shall be
an additional burden on the State Exchequer. Therefore, due to
the reasoning mentioned by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in case of Suman Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. (supra), this Court is not inclined to interfere in
this matter. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11/04/2025
Transmission Date NA
