Office of Advocate General demoted, deleted from list of Heads of Departments through 14th amendment in Bihar Service Code, after 23rd Advocate General takes charge

By the order of the Governor of Bihar, Rachna Patil, Secretary (Expenditure). Department of Finance has issued a notification dated June 19, 2026, demoting the Office of Advocate General by deleting it from the list of Heads of Departments under Bihar Service Code. The notification reads: "No. 3A-5-S.C.-05/2013-5777/F. —In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article- 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Bihar is hereby pleased to make the following Amendment in The Bihar Service Code, 1952 with immediate effect:—Amendment "The Office of The Advocate General, Bihar" shall be deleted at S.No.-34 from the list of Heads of Department of the Appendix-3 of the Bihar Service Code."  

Notably, this amendment was published in the aftermath of the appointment of Satydarshi Sanjay as the 23rd Advocate General of Bihar from the date on which he took charge. The notification dated June 18, 2026 with regard to his appointment was issued under the signature of Balram Dubey by the order of the Governor of Bihar. S.D. Sanjay, a law graduate from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University was serving as the Additional Solicitor General of India before taking charge as the 23rd AG on June 18, 2026. He has served as Additional Advocate General of Bihar during 2010-2014.  

The notification from Balram Dubey, Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar reads:"भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 165 (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्यिों का प्रयोग करते हुए बिहार के राज्यपाल, श्री एस०डी० संजय (श्री सत्यदर्शी संजय), वरीय अधिवक्ता, उच्च न्यायालय, पटना को उनके पदभार ग्रहण की तिथि से महाधिवक्ता, बिहार के पद पर नियुक्त करते है।" A copy of the communication was sent to 22nd AG at Shahi Bhawan, Shahi Lane, S.P.Verma Road, Patna-800001. 

This amendment has been enacted after the resignation of Prashant Kumar Shahi, the 22nd Advocate General (AG) of Bihar on June 15, 2026. Balram Dubey, Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar communicated to the 22nd AG that his resignation has been accepted under instructions from the afternoon of June 15, 2026 vide letter no. 4742. 

No one was Advocate General of Bihar for three days because after the resignation of 22nd AG, no one was appointed for three days.         

Notably, the details regarding the acceptance of the resignation of the 22nd AG and appointment of teh 23rd AG has been published on the official website of the office of the Advocate General, Bihar, High Court, Patna. The website was developed by the l.T. Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. It was launched on September 22, 2025 at 4:30 pm. The resignation letter has not been published on the website.

Earlier, by the order of Governor of Bihar, The Bihar Service Code, 1952 was amended in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 to elevate the status of Office of The Advocate General, Bihar.  The 13th amendment to Bihar Service Code reads: "The Office of The Advocate General, Bihar" shall be added after S.No.-33 at S.No.-34 in the list of Heads of Department of the Appendix-3 of the Bihar Service Code." It was notified in the Bihar Gazette No. 856 on August 28, 2024. It implied that the Advocate General (AG) was deemed as the Head of Department of Government of Bihar. The upgradation of the AG Office into a separate department is a significant institutional change. AG was designated as head of the newly created department. It implied that AG was been granted the status of Cabinet rank minister. 

With the 14th amendment in the Bihar Service Code, AG will no more be deemed the head of a department.  During the tenure of the 22nd AG, questions were raised in the Bihar State Assembly about the role AG as the 46th Department of Bihar Government but the office of the Speaker, Bihar State Assembly had not allowed those questions.     

Notably, Mahabir Prasad was the longest serving AG He was AG for 19 years. Ram Balak Mahto served as AG for 14 years. P.K Shahi served for some 8 years. 

 The list of former Advocate Generals are as under:

1  Baldeo Sahay 1937 to 1942

2  Jaffar Imam 1942 to 1943

3  Mahabir Prasad 1943 to 1947

4  Laxmi Kant Jha 1948 to 1950

5  Mahabir Prasad 1950 to 1965

6  Lal Narayan Sinha 28-06-1965 to 31-01-1972

7  Balbhadra Prasad Singh 01-02-1972 to 27-09-1976

8  Tara Kant Jha 28-09-1976 to 19-09-1977

9  Krishna Das Chatterjee 20-09-1977 to 16-10-1979

10  Radha Raman 19-10-1979 to 04-04-1980

11  Ram Balak Mahto 05-04-1980 to 09-07-1980

12  Kanhaiya Prasad Verma 10-07-1980 to 04-04-1985

13  Ram Balak Mahto 05-04-1985 to 11-12-1989

14  Kanhaiya Prasad Verma 19-12-1989 to 11-04-1990

15  Ram Balak Mahto 12-04-1990 to 01-12-1993

16  Rameshwar Prasad 02-12-1993 to 31-12-1997

17  Shashi Anugrah Narain 01-01-1998 to 24-11-2005

18  Prashant Kumar Shahi 25-11-2005 to 25-11-2010

19  Ram Balak Mahto 29-11-2010 to 19-02-2015

20  Ram Balak Mahto 27-02-2015 to 28-07-2017

21  Lalit Kishore        31-07-2017 to 10-01-2023

22. Prashant Kumar Shahi    16-01-2023 to 15-06-2026

Also read: Advocate General, Bihar gets cabinet minister status after 13th amendment in the Appendix-3 of Bihar Service Code 

'The arrears of salary for the said period shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of 3 months...': Justice Partha Sarthy

In Anil Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Partha Sarthy of Patna High Court delivered a 8-page long judgement dated November 3, 2025 wherein, he concluded:" 15. In the opinion of the Court, the case of the petitioner having been allowed and the orders of punishment having been set aside on account of violation of the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra; (1998) 7 SCC 84 as also Yoginath Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; (1999) 7 SCC 739, so far as the payment of back-wages for the period that the petitioner was prevented from working, in the opinion of the Court, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) quoted herein above and the same is fit to be allowed. 16. The writ application is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled for full back-wages for the period from 26.4.1995 till 2.4.2011. The arrears of salary for the said period shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'' The other four Respondents were:Director General of Police, Bihar, Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Military, East Division, Jamalpur, Munger and Commandant, Bihar Military Police, Begusarai

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the arrears of salary and allowances with interest further to the petitioner from the date of his termination i.e. 26.04.1995 till joining i.e. 02.04.2011 on account of quashing of the order of termination and consequently quashing of the part order of the commandant, Bihar Military Police- 8, Begusarai communicated dated April 2, 2011. He prayed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the Command order dated October 26, 2013 issued by Commandant BMP- 8, Begusarai by which it has been decided that for the period of dismissal till the date of reinstatement i.e. from 26.04.1995 to 02.04.2011 only Notional benefit shall be payable to the petitioner on account of quashing /setting aside the order of discharge from service of petitioner vide order dated 03.08.2010 passed in CWJC No. 5177 of 1997 and as such the back wages has been denied on the ground of principal of no work no pay."

The petitioner had also prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take decision under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, treating the period of discharge from service i.e. from 26.04.1995 to 02.04.2011 of the petitioner on duty and to make payment of salary for the said period as the order of Discharge from service dated 26.04.1995 was quashed by the High Court vide order dated 03.08.2010 passed in CWJC No.5177 of 1997 and consequent to that petitioner was reinstated in service vide Command Order dated 02.04.2011, therefore it were the respondents themselves who kept away the petitioner from out of service from 26.04.1995 to 02.04.2011 by way of wrong order of Discharge from service.

The case of the petitioner was that he was deputed as an Arm Guard in village Paharpur in the District of
Aurangabad. On account of the petitioner being unauthorizedly absent, an enquiry was conducted and
departmental proceeding no.23 of 1993 was started against him wherein the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.1.1995 finding the petitioner to be guilty of unauthorised absence, however not finding the petitioner to be guilty of having illicit relations with one Pushpa Devi. The Commandant, Bihar Military Police (‘B.M.P’) disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and giving his reasons issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he be not discharged from service. On receiving the petitioner’s show cause, the Commandant, B.M.P issued order of punishment of discharge of the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the D.I.G, B.M.P, which was rejected on 30.12.1995. He filed a memorial followed by another memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar. Not getting any orders on the memorial filed, the petitioner preferred CWJC no.3796 of 1996, which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondent to decide the memorial of the petitioner. The memorial of the petitioner was rejected on 27.3.1997.  The petitioner thereafter challenged the order of punishment as also the orders rejecting his appeal and memorial by filing CWJC no.5177 of 1997. By order dated 3.8.2010, the impugned orders were quashed and the writ application allowed. On the petitioner filing a representation before the authority followed by a contempt application vide M.J.C no.897 of 2011, the petitioner was reinstated in service, however was not given any financial benefits from the date of order of dismissal till the date of his rejoining.

The petitioner moved the High Court in C.W.J.C no.1334 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 8.11.2012 with the direction that the issue relating to back-wages may be decided by the Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The petitioner had filed a representation before the respondents. By letter dated 27.2.2013 written by the
Commandant, B.M.P-8, Begusarai to the Inspector General, B.M.P, Patna, a copy of which was marked to the petitioner, the petitioner was informed that he would not be getting any financial benefits/arrears from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement but will only be getting notional benefit for the same. Therefore, the petitioner had moved the High Court for the reliefs prayed for. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of punishment having been set aside by the High Court, not having been found sustainable in law, he was entitled for the arrears of salary for the period that he was kept out of service. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on paragraph no.38.5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Ors.; (2013) 10 SCC 324.

The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for any arrears of salary for the reason that the writ application (C.W.J.C no.5177 of 1997) of the petitioner was allowed only on a technical ground and thus on the principles of ‘no work no pay’, the petitioner is not entitled for any salary for the said period.

The judgement referred to Supreme Court's decision in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra), wherein it held:“38.5. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages ”

Justice Partha Sarthy observed: ''From the records of the case, it transpires that pursuant to the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the same ended in the order of punishment of discharge from service of the petitioner being passed by the Commandant, B.M.P. The appeal as also memorial filed by the petitioner were rejected vide orders dated 12.1.1996 and 27.3.1997 respectively. 13. All the three orders ie the order of punishment of discharge from service as also the order rejecting the appeal and memorial were the subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C no.5177 of 1997 filed by the petitioner. The writ application was allowed by order dated 3.8.2010 setting aside the three impugned orders. So far as the back-wages, arrears for the period that the petitioner was not in service on account of the order of discharge, the petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C no.1334 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 8.11.2012 directing the respondents to decide the issue of payment of back-wages. The same has been rejected by the order impugned.''