The Registrar General, Patna High Court has issued a notice dated August 29, 2025 regarding the new role of Justice P. B. Bajanthri, who has bee assigned the task of Acting Chief Justice. It reads: "As directed, please take notice that with effect from 29.08.2025 (Friday), after I 0:45 A.M., new filings will be made and accepted in the name of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, Justice P. B. Bajanthri." Justice Bajanthri will retire on October 22, 2025.
Jagannathan Srinivasan, Joint Secretary, Appointments Division, Department of Justice, Government of India issued a notification dated August 27, 2025 addressed to The Manager, Government of India Press with regard to Justice Bajanthri. It reads: ''In exercise of the power conferred by Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Pavankumar Bhimappa Bajanthri, Judge of the Patna High Court, to perform the duties of office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Shri Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Chief Justice, Patna High Court relinquishes charge of his office consequent upon his elevation as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.''
He took oath as Judge of Patna High Court on October 20, 2021. During October 21, 2021-December 31, 2021, he was part of the bench that delivered 534 judgements. In 2022, his bench delivered 1785 judgements. In 2023, his bench delivered 930 judgements. In 2024, he was part of the bench that delivered 825 judgements. In 2025, his bench has delivered 641 judgements till August 28.
As part of the Division Bench comprising him and Justice Vikash Jain, he authored his first 10-page long judgement dated October 21, 2021 in Hirawati Devi vs.. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Department, Bihar & Ors. (2021), wherein, he set aside the order dated October 28, 2019 and November 1, 2019 and the 15-page long judgment dated March 8, 2021 passed by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah in Hirawati Devi vs.. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Department, Bihar & Ors.
The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or writs direction for quashing the order dated October 28, 2019 passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the petitioner was removed from the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Lohdan Block-Chand, District-Kaimur at Bhabua for the left over period of Gram Panchayat, on the charge of defalcation of public fund though the defalcated amount along with interest was deposited in the account and also been ordered for recovery of compound interest for the period of defalcated amount was kept by the petitioner holding that the defalcated amount would have been used by the petitioner for her personal use. Justice Shah did not find ''any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.11.2019, thus the present writ petition stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit.'' He had referred to the order dated 28.11.2019 to be ''well reasoned, legal and a self speaking order''. He had added that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate as to how the impugned order dated 28.10.2019 and 01.11.2019, passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna and the grounds mentioned therein for removal of the petitioner as a Mukhiya, are perverse and inapposite.'' Justice Bajanthri had reversed the order by Justice Shah.
In Smt. Sarita Bhat @ Smt. Sarita Bhatt vs. The State Of Bihar and Ors.(2022), as part of the Division Bench, he delivered a judgement wherein, he granted relief to the appellant. The 6-page long judgement dated December 22, 2022 reads: the concerned respondent is hereby directed to consider the name of appellant to appoint her on compassionate ground to Class III post. 10. In the light of these facts that she had fulfilled the requisite education qualification and other criteria including relaxation of certain criteria to such of those persons who were seeking compassionate appointment. Appellant has made out a case. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date receipt of this order. 11. Accordingly, present L.P.A stands allowed." The appellant had assailed the order by Justice Jyoti Saran the Single Judge dated August 29, 2017 passed in C.W.J.C No. 12197 of 2016. The appellant was wife of deceased Late Subhash Bhat had submitted application for compassionate appointment on October 31, 2012. Her counsel had submitted that the Single Judge had committed error in not appreciating factual aspects of the matter. Justice Bajanthri relied on the decision by the Supreme Court in Delhi Jal Board vs. Nirmala Devi, 2022 (Live Law) (SC) 863/CA 7047 of 2022 decided on October 19, 2022 wherein it was held that in respect of compassionate appointment of a person, the date on which application is submitted, education qualification and relevant provision as on the date of application for compassionate appointment is required to be taken note of. He observed: ''In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case the appellant has made out a prima facie case so as to interfere with the decision of the respondent in not providing compassionate appointment to Class III post and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C No. 12197 of 2016 is set aside. 9. Accordingly, C.W.J.C No. 12197 of 2016 filed by the appellant stands allowed.'' In Smt. Sarita Bhat vs. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar & Ors. (2017), Justice Saran concluded:''I refuse to exercise my extraordinary jurisdiction to grant indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed' in his 2-page long judgement dated August 29, 2017. Justice Bajanthri had reversed the judgement by Justice Saran.
In Mehin Nigar Begum vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2023), Justice Bajanthri led bench reversed the judgement by Justice Shivaji Pandey, the Single Judge. In his 4-page long judgement dated Jnaury 2, 2023, he observed:''The appellant was working since the year 2003, even though there were no disciplinary regulation governing the post of Aganwadi Sevika at the same time, if there are serious allegations in such an event a formal inquiry should have been held before passing order of removal from service. The same has not been appreciated by the learned single judge while passing the impugned order on 12.07.2019 in C.J.W.C. No. 10485 of 2017. Accordingly, the present LPA is allowed while setting aside the order dated 12.07.2019 and order of removal from service dated 03.04.2017 read with 29.12.2014.'' In his 3-page long judgement dated July 12, 2019, Justice Pandey had concluded:''this Court does not find any error in the impugned orders. This writ petition is devoid of any merit, accordingly, the same is dismissed.'' Unlike Justice Pandey, Justice Bajanthri led Division Bench found merit in the writ petition.
In Ramanuj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024), Justice Bajanthri led bench modified the 4-page long judgement dated August 9, 2019 by Justice Madhuresh Prasad. Drawing on Supreme Court's decision in the case of Secy., State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in his 3-page long judgement dated January 2, 2024, Justice Bajanthri concluded:''The appellant cannot claim equity in future as and when regular Class- IV post is filled up. The concerned authority is hereby directed to take back the appellant forthwith and continue him against one of the Class-IV post till regular recruitment is made. 4. With the above observations, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2020 passed in CWJC No. 374 of 2019 stands modified. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 1165 of 2019 stands disposed of." Unlike Justice Bajanthri, Justice Prasad had concluded:''From the pleadings on record, it is obvious that the petitioner does not have any enforceable claim for regularization against a Class IV post. The order of the District Magistrate, Arwal dated 04.08.2018 does not suffer from any legal infirmity inasmuch as after due consideration of all the facts, the petitioner’s claim for regularization has been rejected. 10 In the circumstances, at best, the petitioner has performed part time duties as a Sweeper which too was not against any sanctioned post and, as such, petitioner has no legally enforceable claim for regularization. 11 Writ petition is dismissed." Justice Bajanthri modified this judgement.
In The Union of India through the Chairman, Indian Railway, Railway Board, New Delhi vs. Sato Devi (2025), Justice Bajanthri led bench delivered a 3-page long judgement dated January 24, 2025 dismissed the writ petition. He concluded:''4. Before 07.12.2020, the date on which deceased employee died, the official petitioners should have taken necessary steps to remove the entries made in the Service Register insofar as incorporating the name of the respondent-Sato Devi. Such steps have not been undertaken during the life time of the deceased employee. Now, at this distance of time and in the absence of deceased employee, hands of the official petitioners are tied and they are bound by the entries made in the Service Register which is attested by the Senior Officers. This entry cannot be tinkered at this distance of time. 5. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have not made out a case. 6. Writ petition dismissed." The Union of India and others, the petitioners had assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated July 23, 2024 passed in OA No.050/00782/2022. The Respondent-Sato Devi, the wife of the deceased-Jageshwar Paswan, retired Gang man, Jhanjharpur who retired on March 31, 2012. Before his retirement, he was stated to have submitted an application to enter the name of respondent-Sato Devi in the Service Book and it was entered under the signature of Senior Officers. He had died on December 7, 2020. His first wife-Reshami Devi died on June 6, 2021. The core issue involved in the present lis was whether second wife- Sato Devi (respondent) was entitled to have the benefit of Family Pension and other benefits or not?
Prior to joining Patna High Court, he was the Judge of Karnataka High Court from November 17, 2018 till October 2021. He was transferred as an Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana on March 16, 2015. Earlier, he was appointed as an additional judge of the Karnataka High Court on January 2, 2015. He was enrolled as advocate on 1990 and practiced in High Court of Karnataka. During 1993-94, he was a Standing Counsel of KPSC. He was appointed as a Notary by the Government of India in May 2006. He was born on October 23, 1963. He studied in Vidhyavardhaka Sangha, K.L.E. Society and S.J.R.C. Law College, Bangalore.
Also read:Supreme Court upholds judgement by Justice P. B. Bajanthri
No comments:
Post a Comment