Division Bench sets aside para 7 of order by Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay passed in 2019

In The State of Bihar & Ors. Ranjan Kumar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 24, 2025, wherein, it concluded that the Single Judge had committed error in para-7 of the order dated December 11, 2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17415 of 2018. It set aside para-7 of the 4-page long order. in Ranjan Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2019) by Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay. This was the 9th judgment by chief justice Bajanthri.. 

The appellants-State has assailed the order by the Single Judge dated December 11, 2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17415 of 2018 only to the extent of para-7 of the order. Para-7 reads: “7. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence except that in future if the respondents take steps for making appointment or engagement on the post of Executive Assistant, they are required to grant one opportunity the persons who were empaneled earlier, in the event, they crossed the maximum age limit.”

Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri observed; "2. The aforementioned observation of the learned Single Judge is purely a policy matter insofar as providing relaxation of age for the future recruitment to the post of Executive Assistant. To that extent learned Single Judge had committed error. Accordingly, Para-7 of the order dated 11.12.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17415 of 2018 stands set aside. In not extending age relaxation benefit by judicial order would not be a hurdle for the Respondent to approach the State Government in seeking age relaxation for the post of Executive Assistant to be notified in future. 3. With the above observation, present L.P.A. No. 17 of 2022 stands disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

Justice Upadhayay's order reads:"The constitution bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shankarshan Das has held out that mere empanelment does not create indefeasible right but the authorities connected with the engagement or appointment have to see that inviting application and preparing is not a public relation exercise. 6. Unfortunately, the life of the panel has expired and after expiry the life of the panel, the Court cannot revive the life of the expired panel." Justice Upadhaya's order further reads: "the respondents are directed to entertain their application if the last date for submission application has expired as exceptional case having regard to the fact that the present writ applications were pending in this Curt. 10. With the aforesaid, the present petitions stand disposed of. 11. It is made clear that refusal to grant indulgence cannot be taken by the respondents as a liberty to them to invite application and after completing the panel frustrate the expectation of the empanelled candidates. In future, if they prepare panel in connection with the appointment of Executive Assistant, they are obliged to take the preparation of panel to its logical end otherwise their inaction shall be viewed seriously."

Given the fact that only para 7 of Justice Upadhayay's order has been set aside by the High Court's Division Bench, all other observations and directions made in it remain intact and valid.    

Appellant permitted to file Civil Review before Single Judge who found writ petition to be barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata:

In Lalan Prasad Rai vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 2-page long judgement dated September 24, 2025, wherein, it concluded: "we find that there is no infirmity. However, we are of the tentative opinion that regularization of an employee is a continuing process and continuing cause of action would arise. Therefore, the Appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18679 of 2010. Be that as it may, Appellant is permitted to file Civil Review before the learned Single Judge." This is the 8th judgement authored by Chief Justice Bajanthri.

In his 8th judgement authored s Chief Justice, Justice Bjanthri observed: "3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla and Others versus Vikram Cement and Others, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 58 held that in the absence of liberty granted by the High Court, party can file fresh petition when there is no intention as to abandonment. 4. With the above observation, present L.P.A. No. 1614 of 2018 stands disposed of." 

The appellant had assailed the 2-page long order by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, the Single Judge dated June 25, 2018 passed in Lalan Prasad Rai vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors. (2025). Justice Shah observed:"The learned counsel for the respondents points out that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in CWJC No. 16341 of 2009 and this Court by an order dated 8.1.2010 had dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn. It is submitted that since the writ petition was dismissed without any further liberty to the petitioner to file any further writ petition, the present writ petition is clearly barred. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the present writ petition is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed." The writ petition was filed for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of driver.

Patna High Court's Division Bench sets aside order by Appellate Authority, Road Construction Department

In Sai Engicon and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar & Ors.(2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 23, 2025, wherein, it concluded: "We find there is no merit other than harsh penalty of blacklisting for about 10 years. The authority, who has passed the impugned order dated 01.01.2025 is hereby directed to re-examine insofar as quantum of number of years of blacklisting in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited and Another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2020) 18 Supreme Court Cases 550 read with Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution that petitioner’s livelihood is at stake for almost a decade in event of giving effect to blacklisting for a period of 10 years." It noted that the Appellate Authority's order has no merit.

In his 6th judgement as chief justice, Justice Bajanthri observed: "The Appellate Authority order is also set aside. The concerned Authority is hereby directed to pass a fresh order insofar as blacklisting while taking note of the aforementioned observation. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. Accordingly, the instant Writ petition stands disposed of.

Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri led Division Bench sets aside the communication of South Bihar Power Distribution Company

In M/s Daksha Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company through its Managing Director & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 23, 2025, wherein, it concluded: "the petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the communication dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-P/6) and it is set aside. Respondents are at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding by issuing show cause notice and seeking petitioner’s explanation. On receipt of petitioner’s explanation, proceed to pass a detailed and speaking order after due consideration of each of the contention to be raised against the show cause notice. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed." This is 5th judgement authored by Chief Justice Bajanthri.

Justice Bajanthri observed that from the communication dated April 28, 2025, it is quite  clear that "the petitioner has not been heard in the form of issuance of show cause notice and receipt of reply. Impugned decision has a civil consequences on the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to show cause notice and other formalities before passing any adverse order."

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of Writ in nature of Certiorari quashing the Letter No.1236 dated April 28, 2025 passed by Respondent No.2, wherein the Petitioner Company has been debarred from Supplying materials (cables) to SBPDCL for next five years.

Patna High Court's Division Bench modifies judgement by Justice Purnendu Singh in a service case

In The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. Md. Wasiqur Rahman & Anr. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 6-page long judgement dated September 23, 2025, wherein it modified the 9-page long judgement dated August 24, 2023 by Justice Purnendu Singh in Md. Wasiqur Rahman vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2023). This is the 4th judgement authored by Chief Justice Bajanthri.

The question for consideration before the Division Bench was whether respondent No. 1 – Md. Wasiqur Rahman was entitled to count service from the year 1988 till November 22, 2011 for the purpose of extending retiral benefits including fixation of pension or not ? Till October 16, 1997 matter attained finality to the extent that respondent No. 1 obtained appointment to the post of Teacher by furnishing false and fabricated documents. The respondent No. 1 had right to question the District Magistrate’s decision insofar as giving finding that respondent No. 1 had furnished false certificate. In other words, he should have approached next higher forum or knocking the doors of this Court. On the other hand, he had submitted representation to the District Magistrate. In all fairness the District Magistrate should not have entertained the representation of respondent No. 1, it should have been transmitted to the appointing authority to respondent No. 1 i.e., appointing authority to Teacher post.

Justice Bajanthri observed:''5. Prima facie, we find that there must be a collusion among the office of the District Magistrate and respondent No. 1. In other words, the District Magistrate should have taken note of
earlier proceedings relating to that respondent No. 1 had filed false certificate and DSE report. In fact, DSE report should have been forwarded to appointing authority to respondent No. 1 for further proceedings. Therefore, having regard to the conduct of both the respective parties, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to count service from the year 1988 to 14.10.1997 for the purpose of retiral benefits and pensionary benefits. That apart, he has not discharged the duties of the post in regular terms and certain breaks are found during the intervening period till 15.10.2017. In the light of these facts and circumstances, delay of 596 stands condoned in so far as filing of LPA and I.A. for condonation of delay is allowed." 

Justice Bajanthri concluded: "....respondent No. 1 is entitled to count service only from 15.10.1997 to 22.11.2011 or 30th November, 2011 towards retiral benefits and pension, if it is not fixed and paid as on this day, the same shall be calculated and disbursed in favour of the respondent No. 1. Further, arrears of
pension shall be extended from 30.11.2011 to this day. 8. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. To the above extent, order of the learned Single Judge stands modified." 

In his judgement, Justice Singh, the Single Judge  had concluded:'' 9. The action of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria shows that he has not only committed jurisdictional error, but the available records reflect that, exercising his pure will and whims, has exercised arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely, being adamant in restraining himself by not complying with the orders of this Court. 10. Considering the deliberate inaction on the part of the District Programme Officer (Establishemnt), Araria, the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, is directed to take appropriate action in the matter relating to the payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner by calling service records relating to the petitioner, thereafter, he is directed to comply with the direction passed in LPA No. 77 of 2008 considering the admitted fact that the petitioner had retired in the year 2011 and the total period of pensionable service is required to be taken from the date of appointment of the petitioner in the year 1988 in accordance with the provision of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, and if it is found that the pension and gratuity as claimed by the petitioner is admissible, appropriate steps be taken to direct the concerned authority to sanction the pension and gratuity of the petitioner by forwarding the letter to the Accountant General, Bihar. 11. The above exercise is directed to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order." The Division Bench has modified this order to a limited extent. 

For service matters of employee/officials, public interest litigation is not maintainable: Patna High Court

In Shambhu Sharan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 4-page long judgement dated September 22, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 read with Girjesh Shrivastava and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 707 held that insofar as service matters of employee/officials are concerned, public interest litigation is not maintainable. Accordingly, present writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), reserving liberty to such of those aggrieved employees to approach or invoke remedy under the Act, 1952."

Justice Bajanthri who authored his 3rd judgement as Chief Justice observed: "it is crystal clear that it is individual relief to be sought by the concerned daily wager or outsourced employee whose services have been engaged in the form of contract. In that regard under Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act, 1952’), there is specific provision. If there is denial of extending of any benefit under the Act, 1952, the concerned individual–employee is required to invoke remedy before quasi judicial authority and further, in the event of passing any adverse order by the quasi judicial authority, in that event, litigant is entitled to file appeal before the appellate authority. There are certain time limit stipulated. In this backdrop, the present public interest litigation filed by a stranger is not maintainable."

The petitioner had prayed for necessary direction upon the respondent authorities to extend the benefits of EPF & MP Act to the contractual/outsourced/daily wages employees engaged by the respondent authorities in their various departments without any social security benefits as provided under the provisions of the EPF & MP Act. It was also prayed that Court should hold that the respondent authorities cannot be allowed to utilize the services of such workers during their working years and to leave them without any social security benefits after their disengagement, which amounts to exploitation of Human resources. 

Citizens cannot decide place or spot of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Jamui:Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri Court

In Ramashish Rawat vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench led by Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri delivered a 5-page long judgement dated September  22, 2025, wherein, it observed:''It is well settled that such matters fall within the policy/making domain of the Executive, and unless the policy is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory or unconstitutional, this Court cannot substitute its wisdom for that of the Government.'' As Chief Justice, this was the second judgement he delivered.  

Relying on Supreme Court's decisions in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 597, Chief Justice Bjanathri who authored the judgement recollected that the Supreme Court has held that Courts are not intended to and should not sub- stitute their views in the views of the Executive in policy matters. He drew Supreme Court's decision in BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333 in which it was held that unless a policy decision is arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to statutory provisions, Courts cannot interfere. He also relied on Court's decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664 in which it is held that Courts should not examine the wisdom or correctness of policy choices. 

The High Court concluded: ''In the light of aforementioned discussions, writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the competent authority, who will consider the same in accordance with law and Government policy." Justice Bajanthri observed:"Citizens cannot decide Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is required to be constructed in which place or spot. On the other hand, State Government has evolved policy for the purpose of construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan. Therefore, the petitioner can seek only for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in the relevant Panchayat. The concerned authority is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner...."