Allowed

Radhey Shyam Bihari Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Jul 2012CWJC/6673/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna allowed a writ application quashing a Divisional Commissioner's order. The court held a retired District Magistrate's re-employment of senior staff was an irregular but not illegal act done in public interest during an acute staff shortage in a newly created district.

What did the court decide?

Order of Divisional Commissioner held unsustainable and quashed; writ application allowed.

Radhey Shyam Bihari Singh Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6673 of 2006

¶3

====================================================== Radhey Shyam Bihari Singh , son of late Ramashray Singh, R/o 07 H.F. 03/27, Sector VIII, Bahadurpur Housig Colony, Bhootnath Road, P.S. Agamkuan, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. 3. The Additional Secretary to Govt., Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Ppatna. 4. The District Magistrate, Kishanganj, 5. The Additional Secretary, personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Tewary,Advocate Mr. Subhash Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary,A.C. to SC-21. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶4

4 25-07-2012 The petitioner is a retired Officer of the Indian Administrative Service Cadre. By this writ application he has challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, by which the Commissioner has order realization of salary to be paid to one of the collectorate staff of Kishanganj , from the petitioner who at the material time was the District Magistrate-cum-Collector Kishanganj.

¶5

When Kishanganj had been newly created as District, petitioner had been posted there as the District Magistrate-cum-Collector. There was acute shortage of staff because process of staff recruitment had not yet been completed in his office. Out of the 85 employees in

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.6673 of 2006 (4) dt.25-07-2012

¶7

2 / 3

¶8

the collectorate, six senior most staff retired. This created inconvenience in administering the newly formed district. Accordingly, looking to the work contingency the petitioner reemployed three of the retired senior most employees and sought approval of the Divisional Commissioner. Let it be noted that out of the three, only one joined who also left after about six months when he was not paid anything towards his remuneration. After two years the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea turned town the approval as sought for and consequently passed the aforesaid order as against the petitioner. This is what has been challenged.

¶9

In the counter affidavit that has been filed by the State the only defence is that prior approval/sanction had not been taken by the District Magistrate and as such the decision of the District Magistrate to re-employ the non-gazette officer was wrong and the decision of the Divisional Commissioner was correct. In the counter affidavit it is not contradicted that work in the newly created collectorate was being hampered because of superannuation almost simultaneous of six senior most staff.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that keeping this fact in mind, if the Collector took immediate step as a Collector and head of the district to reappoint senior most retiring staff, then it cannot be said to be an act which was wholly unauthorized. It was an act done in administrative exigency with due intimation to the Divisional Commissioner seeking his approval as well. The unfortunate part is that the Divisional Commissioner sat over the matter for two years. Had he any objection, then he could have reverted immediately, but in the

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.6673 of 2006 (4) dt.25-07-2012

¶12

3 / 3

¶13

counter affidavit there is no explanation why he sat over the matter. Thus the act of the Collector could at best be termed as irregular but by no strech of imagination illegal.

¶14

Be that as it may, considering what the District Magistratecum-Collector did , was in the larger public interest, which fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit, in my view, he cannot be held responsible for payment of the sum of about Rs. 49000/- as ordered. The order of the Divisional Commissioner to that extent cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. The writ application is accordingly allowed.

¶15

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)

¶16

M.Rahman/-

Radhey Shyam Bihari Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam Bihari Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shyam Prasad Choudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kusheshwar Das Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Chandrawati Kunwar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Satyadeo Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kaushal Kishore Mishra and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.