Uday Shankar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 477 Patna

Patna High Court

Uday Shankar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 16 February, 2026

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1452 of 2022
     ======================================================
     Uday Shankar Prasad Singh Son of Ram Dharikshan Singh, resident of
     Village and P.O.- Baghakhal, District - Muzaffarpur, presently residing at
     New Colony, Balughat, Road no. 3, Muzaffarpur, the retired Junior Engineer,
     Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur.           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.    The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
     Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Municipal Commissioner, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation,
     Muzaffarpur.
4.   The Executive Engineer, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur.
5.    The Assistant Engineer, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur.
                                                             ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :      Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate
     For the State           :      Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh, GA-3
                             :      Mr. Indeshwari Prasad, AC to GA-3
     For the Res No.3        :      Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 16-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities and particularly the Respondent no.3 to pay the contractual amount of Rs.3,08,886/- for installation of the Pipe from the office of Animal Husbandry to the Road of Bibiganj which was done departmentally for which the petitioner had already Patna High Court CWJC No.1452 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026

submitted the bill and after deduction of necessary deduction the bill of Rs.3,08,886/-was sanctioned and passed by all the Authorities in the year 2017 but the said amount of bill was not paid to the petitioner rather the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- taken by the petitioner for execution of the said work was illegally adjusted/deducted from the retiral dues of the issued petitioner vide memo no.556 dated 31.03.2018 under the signature of the Respondent no.3.

(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities for payment of the aforesaid amount of the contractual work to the petitioner with interest as on the ground that the Respondents had arbitrarily deducted the amount of advance of the said contractual work from the retiral dues of the petitioner as also the delay caused in payment of the said amount to the petitioner is directly attributable to the Respondents alone.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ

petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer

in the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation vide office order no. Patna High Court CWJC No.1452 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026

519 dated 12.04.1984 and pursuant thereto, he gave his joining

before the competent authority. In the year, 2016, a proposal

was made by the Corporation for installation of the Pipe Line

from the office of Animal Husbandry to Bibiganj Road and a

decision was taken for doing the said work at the departmental

level, for an estimated cost of Rs. 9,99,800/-. The petitioner was

appointed as the Executing Agent and as per the assertion made

by the petitioner, he completed the work as per specification and

the said work was entered in the measurement book, which was

duly verified by the Assistant Engineer and the Executive

Engineer of the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that for

completion of the said work, an advance to the tune of Rs.

2,00,000/- was given to the petitioner on 10.08.2016 and after

completion of the work, the petitioner prepared a bill of Rs.

3,39,436/-, from which necessary deduction towards Income

Tax to the tune of Rs. 30,550/- was made and after deduction, an

amount of Rs. 3,08,886/- was to be paid to the petitioner. The

Assistant Engineer, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation

recommended for payment of the said amount on 08.01.2017

after adjusting the advance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, since the

work was already completed and the said recommendation was Patna High Court CWJC No.1452 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026

duly forwarded and recommended by the Executive Engineer of

the Corporation on 20.04.2017, but the remaining amount to the

tune of Rs. 1,08,550/- was not paid to the petitioner. In the

meantime, after the attaining age of superannuation, the

petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2017 and vide order

contained in Memo No. 556 dated 31.03.2018, the gratuity

amount of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 8,98,398/- was

sanctioned. However, a direction was issued by the Municipal

Commissioner, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation,

Muzaffarpur to deduct the advance amount of Rs. 2,29,300/-

and Rs.35,719/- i.e. total amount to the tune of Rs. 2,65,019/-

from the retirement benefit of the petitioner and accordingly, all

the payments were made to the petitioner after recovery of the

above-mentioned amount to the Rs. 2,65,019/- from the

retirement benefits of the petitioner.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner filed several representations before

the authorities concerned for payment of the total bill amount to

the tune of Rs. 3,08,886/-, but no action was taken on the said

representations.

6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the work order issued Patna High Court CWJC No.1452 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026

in favour of the petitioner has been brought on record.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of

the respondent nos. 3 to 5 wherein it has been stated that

although the petitioner claims to have completed the said work

and submitted final bill to the tune of Rs. 3,08,886/-, but the

final settlement and payment of the bill could not be

executed/done due to the absence of complete documentation,

including authenticated completion certificate, final bill, audit

compliance etc.

8. It has further been submitted by the learned

counsel for the State that the deduction to the tune of Rs.

2,00,000/- from the retirement dues of the petitioner was done

due to non-submission of appropriate utilisation and completion

certificate, which is mandatory under the Bihar Finance Rules

and the Municipal Audit Manual. The petitioner submitted the

measurement book wherein details were mentioned, but upon

verification of the work, the Municipal Commissioner found the

work to be unsatisfactory and a noting was made to the effect

that "The work is not found satisfactory. No further payment

shall be made." and accordingly recovery was made from the

retirement benefits of the petitioner. The application filed by the

petitioner was rejected on 24.03.2021, with a note that that the Patna High Court CWJC No.1452 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026

"work is not satisfactory". Further, in the measurement book, no

remark has been made with regard to the fact that whether the

bill is a first bill, partial bill or for the complete scheme and nor

is there any written confirmation from the petitioner about the

completion status of the work and even from perusal of the

measurement book, it is not clear that whether the petitioner has

completed the work satisfactorily or not, in these background,

the order for recovery was made by the Municipal

Commissioner by the impugned order dated 31.03.2018 and the

same has not been assailed in the present writ petition.

9. A reply to the counter affidavit has been filed on

behalf of the petitioner, wherein it has been categorically stated

that the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer have

recommended in the measurement book that the work has been

completed by the petitioner and recommended for making

payment to the petitioner. During course of hearing in the

present case on 09.02.2026, the Muzaffarpur Municipal

Corporation was directed to verify that when the Assistant

Engineer and the Executive Engineer had recommended for

payment of the amount to the petitioner, since the work was

already completed, then under what circumstances, the

payments have not been made and if the said recommendations Patna High Court CWJC No.1452 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026

were found incorrect, then what action has been taken against

the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer.

10. Today, when the matter has been taken upon,

the learned counsel for the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation

fairly submits that no action has been taken against the Assistant

Engineer and the Executive Engineer, meaning thereby that the

Corporation does not found fault with their recommendation.

11. Having heard the parties and after going

through the records, this Court finds that the concerned

authorities recommended for making payment to the petitioner,

which is clear from Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition and they

found the work to have been completed by the petitioner to be

satisfactory. No further enquiry was made by the Municipal

Commissioner, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, since

nothing has been brought on record to show that any further

enquiry was conducted after the recommendation of the

Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer for making

payment, then the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner,

Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation contained in Memo No.

556 dated 31.03.2018 is without any jurisdiction, since in the

impugned order, whereby a direction was issued to recover Rs.

2,65,019/- from the retirement benefits of the petitioner, no Patna High Court CWJC No.1452 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026

consideration has been made by the Municipal Commissioner,

Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation.

12. Accordingly, the direction for recovery of Rs.

2,65,019/- contained in Memo No. 556 dated 31.03.2018 is not

sustainable and is quashed. The petitioner is entitled for

payment of an amount to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which is

included in the recovered amount to the tune of Rs. 2,65,019/-

and is further entitled for payment of the remaining due amount

to the tune of Rs. 1,08,886/-. The petitioner will be paid the total

amount to the tune of Rs. 3,08,886/-, after taking into account

the income tax deductions, if any, to be made from the

petitioner.

13. The entire exercise shall be completed within a

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a

copy of this order before the Municipal Commissioner,

Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation.

14. With the aforesaid observations and directions,

the present writ petition is disposed of.

(Ritesh Kumar, J) AjayMishra/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          25.02.2026.
Transmission Date       NA