Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kalikant Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 239 Patna

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 239 Patna
Judgement Date : 30 January, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Kalikant Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 30 January, 2026

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20975 of 2013
     ======================================================
     Kalikant Jha S/O Lat Jai Govind Jha Resident of Village Dhaga, Pchhawari
     Tola, P.O. Kaluahi, P.S. Arer, District Madhubani.

                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
1.   The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human
     Resource Development, Government of Bihar, Patna
2.   The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Government Of
     Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Additional Commissioner, Department            Of    Human      Resource
     Development, Government Of Bihar, Patna.
4.   The Chairman, Maithili Academy, Flat No. 740/800, Lal Bahadur Shashtri
     Nagar, Patna.
5.   The Director-Cum-Secretary, Maithili Academy, Flat No. 740/800, Lal
     Bahadur Shashtri Nagar, Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      M/s K.N.Choubey, Sr. Advocate
                                   Ambuj Nayan Chaubey
                                   Ashok Kumar Garg, Advocates
     For the State          :      Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP 4
     For the Respondent     :      M/s J.N.Thakur, Advocate
     Nos. 4 and 5
     ======================================================
         CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

                                 Date : 30-01-2026

                    1. The petitioner has filed the instant

      application for the following relief:

                                "(i) For issuance of an appropriate

                        Writ/order/direction including a Writ in

                        the nature of certiorari for quashing the

                        premature order of retirement of the

                        petitioner       (Annexure-1)              and      for
 Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2013 dt.30-01-2026
                                           2/10




                          issuance of a Writ in the nature of

                          mandamus                     commanding           the

                          respondents             to    forthwith   pay     the

                          admissible retiral dues fixed on the

                          basis of his emoluments payable on the

                          due date of retirement and arrears of

                          salary as per the sixth pay revision

                          along with suitable interest thereon to

                          the petitioner;

                                   (ii)    For     grant     of   such    other

                          relief/reliefs as the petitioner may be

                          found entitled to in the facts and

                          circumstances of the instant case.

                           2. The case of the petitioner in brief as

         stated in the Writ petition is that he worked as a

         Peon       in    Maithili        Academy,         Patna.   While    so

         employed, he was arbitrarily ordered to retire from

         service with effect from 31.12.2006, vide Letter No.

         06/07 dated 03.01.2007 issued by the Chairman-

         cum-Director, Maithili Academy. It is stated that the

         impugned order was passed without issuance of

         any      notice       and        without      any   proceeding     for
 Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2013 dt.30-01-2026
                                           3/10




         determination of the petitioner's age, thereby

         violating the principles of natural justice. According

         to the petitioner, he was entitled to continue in

         service till 31.01.2010, as evident from the letter

         dated 08.03.2002 addressed by the Director-cum-

         Secretary, Maithili Academy to the Joint Secretary -

         cum - Director, Department of Higher Education,

         Government of Bihar.

                           3. It is      contended          that the order of

         retirement was not based on service records but on

         the subjective opinion of the respondents formed

         on the basis of petitioner's appearance, which is

         arbitrary           and         illegal.      Despite        repeated

         representations, since January, 2007, no decision

         has been taken by the respondents. It is further

         stated that the petitioner was paid only half of the

         salary during his service period and a substantial

         amount,         including        arrears      of   salary,   gratuity,

         provident fund, leave encashment and other retiral

         dues, remains unpaid. Though the Academy sought

         release of funds from the Government for payment

         of retiral dues, the petitioner's dues were shown
 Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2013 dt.30-01-2026
                                           4/10




         inaccurately and incompletely. It is submitted that

         similarly situated employees were paid their retiral

         dues, whereas the petitioner's claims have been

         illegally withheld. Having no alternative efficacious

         remedy,         the      petitioner           has    approached   this

         Hon'ble Court.

                           4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed

         on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. The Learned

         counsel for the respondents submits that the

         reliefs sought in the Writ petition are ambiguous as

         the petitioner has simultaneously challenged the

         order of retirement dated 03.01.2007 (Annexure-1)

         and has also sought payment of retiral dues after

         revision of pay as per the Sixth Pay Commission.

                           5. It is submitted that the petitioner

         retired from service with effect from 31.12.2006 by

         the impugned order dated 03.01.2007. The Writ

         petition was filed after an inordinate delay of

         nearly six years, without any explanation. On this

         ground alone, the Writ petition is liable to be

         dismissed on account of delay and laches.

                           6.     In      support        of     the   aforesaid
 Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2013 dt.30-01-2026
                                           5/10




         contention, the Learned counsel for the petitioner

         has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble

         Supreme Court in (1) (2014) 4 SCC 1088,

         Chennai           Metropolitan                Water   Supply   and

         Sewerage Board & Ors. vs. T.T. Murali Babu;

         and (2) (2006) 4 SCC 322, Karnataka Power

         Corporation Ltd. vs. K. Thangappan & Anr., to

         contend         that      a    Writ      court,   while   exercising

         jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

         India, may refuse to entertain stale claims.

                           7. It is further submitted that similarly

         situated employees of the Academy have already

         approached this Hon'ble Court for payment of

         retiral dues. In particular, reliance is placed upon

         the judgment dated 25.09.2014 passed in C.W.J.C.

         No. 15038 of 2009 (Ugra Nath Jha vs. The State of

         Bihar & Ors.), wherein the Writ petition was

         dismissed with liberty to the said petitioner to

         approach the Civil Court for recovery of dues, after

         taking note of the fact that Maithili Academy is

         "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the

         Constitution of India.
 Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2013 dt.30-01-2026
                                           6/10




                           8. The Learned counsel further submits

         that Maithili Academy was established pursuant to

         Government Resolution contained in Memo No. 876

         dated 11.03.1975 as a "Society" registered under

         the Societies Registration Act, 1860, to preserve

         and promote Maithili language and literature, and

         that it functions as per the rules mentioned in the

         memorandum of association. Bare perusal of the

         by-laws of the Academy would reveal that there is

         no      provision          for      pension,   gratuity,   leave

         encashment or other retiral benefits to be payable

         to its employees. The petitioner has deliberately

         not brought these by-laws on record.

                           9. It is further submitted that since

         none of the employees of the Academy are

         Government employees, they are entitled for

         honorarium, which cannot be revised as per the

         different recommendation of the Pay Commission.

         In this regard, the department has taken opinion

         from the Law Department, Government of Bihar,

         wherein it was opined that the State Government

         is under no obligation to release grants in aid to
 Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2013 dt.30-01-2026
                                           7/10




         the academy for payment of gratuity and Leave

         Encashment to its retired employee. The Learned

         counsel further submits that although the State

         Government releases annual grants-in-aid to the

         Academy for meeting the expenses of the institute

         it cannot be burdened with the responsibility                    to

         pay      pension, gratuity or leave encashment to the

         employee of the academy.

                           10. It is further submitted that the Law

         Department,              Government            of    Bihar,     has

         categorically opined that the State Government is

         under no legal obligation to release grants-in-aid

         for payment of gratuity or leave encashment to

         retired employees of the Academy. In this context,

         the Learned counsel has drawn attention of this

         Court towards paragraph Nos. 23 and 24 of the

         counter affidavit which read as follows:

                                           "23. That it is stated that the
                        department has taken opinion from the
                        Law Department, Government of Bihar
                        on the issue as to whether the State
                        Government is liable to release grants in
                        aid to the academy in question for
                        payment            of      gratuity   and      Leave
 Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2013 dt.30-01-2026
                                           8/10




                        Encashment to its retired employee.
                                           24. That it is stated that the
                        Law Department, Government of Bihar
                        has opined in no uncertain terms that
                        the      State      Government         is   under   no
                        obligation to release grants in aid to the
                        academy in question particularly for
                        payment            of      gratuity     and     Leave
                        Encashment to its retired employee as
                        the State Government has not given any
                        approval for such payment."



                           11.     The       Learned     counsel      for   the

         respondents has also placed reliance upon the

         judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

         30.01.2019

passed in S.L.P.(C) No. 18502 of 2018

(State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Dr. Sachindra Narayan &

Ors.) relating to A.N. Sinha Institute of Social

Studies, Patna, wherein it has been held that

employees of autonomous societies cannot be

treated at par with Government employees and the

State cannot be burdened with payment of

retirement benefits. It is submitted that the said

ratio squarely applies to the present case.

12. Accordingly, Learned counsel for Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2013 dt.30-01-2026

the respondents prays for dismissal of the Writ

petition as being time barred not maintainable,

and devoid of merits.

13. Heard the Learned counsel for the

petitioner and Learned counsel for the respondents

and perused the materials available on record.

14. This Court finds that the petitioner

has approached this Court, after an inordinate and

unexplained delay from the date of the impugned

order of retirement. In the absence of any

satisfactory explanation, the petitioner is not

entitled to any discretionary relief under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

15. This Court further finds that Maithili

Academy is a society registered under the

Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is governed

by its own memorandum of association and by-

laws. However, the grant-in-aid released by the

State Government is meant only for meeting

establishment and functional expenses of the

academy and does not create any obligation upon

the State Government to bear retiral liabilities of Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2013 dt.30-01-2026

the Academy. The employees of such institute

cannot be treated at par with the employees of the

State Government nor the State can be burdened

with the responsibility to pay pension to the

employee of the academy.

16. Apart from that as per the

submission made by the Learned counsel for the

Maithili Academy, the Academy is no more in

existence, hence the question of directing the

academy to pay the retiral benefits from the fund

of the State Government would not arise.

17. In view of the above, the Writ

petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.

18. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,

shall stands disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) Spd/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          31.01.2026
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