Deepak Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Jan 2025L.P.A/262/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: contractual appointment termination; removal after expiry of contract term; domestic inquiry before termination denied; Executive Assistant, Child Development Office, Ramgarhwa; ICDS / Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar; East Champaran (Motihari); joined 18.02.2012, extension till 04.03.2014, removed 11.09.2014 for demanding documents; contract not subsisting on removal date; Single Judge's negative decision endorsed; remuneration/arrears for post-contract work left open; liberty to approach appropriate forum for payment; Patna High Court Letters Patent Appeal No.262 of 2022 disposed 07-01-2025; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the appropriate forum for payment of remuneration for the period the appellant had actually worked beyond 04.03.2014 (subject to proof of such work); no other relief granted.

Deepak Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to approach the appropriate forum for payment of remuneration for the period the appellant had actually worked beyond 04.03.2014 (subject to proof of such work); no other relief granted.

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, removed on 11.09.2014 from the contractual post of Executive Assistant, was entitled to a domestic inquiry before his termination, with reference to the date of termination as 11.09.2014. +1 more

¶¶33

Court's answer

The challenge to the appellant's removal could not be sustained primarily because, on the date of removal, the contract with the employer never subsisted.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

This Bench endorsed the learned Single Judge's determination of the domestic-inquiry issue in the negative, deeming it correct.

¶¶35–¶36

Key takeaways

If the appellant actually worked beyond 04.03.2014 till the date of his termination, he would be entitled to be remunerated for the same, provided it is proved that he had worked; this point was expressly left open (not addressed by the learned Single Judge).obiter¶¶39–¶41
Since the remuneration issue was not addressed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has liberty to approach the appropriate forum for payment of his remuneration for the period that he had worked; the L.P.A. stands disposed of accordingly.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PATNA HIGH COURT (Division Bench: Ashutosh Kumar & Nawneet Kumar Pandey, JJ.; oral judgment delivered per Ashutosh Kumar, J) — L.P.A. No.262 of 2022 arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20281 of 2021, decided 07-01-2025 (NAFR). The appellant, Deepak Kumar, served as Executive Assistant, Child Development Office, Ramgarhwa (East Champaran) on a one-year extendable contractual appointment; he joined on 18.02.2012 and obtained extension till 04.03.2014. According to him, he was removed on 11.09.2014 for having demanded documents needed to complete his job, which was treated as nuisance in office. The Division Bench held that the challenge to the removal 'could not be sustained primarily' because on the date of removal the contract with the employer never subsisted; accordingly, the learned Single Judge's answer in the negative to whether a domestic inquiry was required before termination was endorsed ('decided in the negative and rightly so'). On remuneration, the Bench observed that if the appellant worked beyond 04.03.2014 till termination, he would be entitled to be remunerated if the work is proved; since that issue was not addressed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant was given liberty to approach the appropriate forum for payment of remuneration for the period worked. The L.P.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.262 of 2022 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20281 of 2021

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Deepak Kumar Son of Late Prakash Chandra Gupta, Resident of Ward No. 10, Ashram Road Raxaul, Post Office and Police Station- Raxaul, District - East Champaran at Motihari.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Director, Integrated Child Development Services (I.C.D.S.), Bihar, Patna.

¶9

¶10

¶11

The District Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶12

The District Programme Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶13

The Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarhwa, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

======================================================

¶16

Appearance :

¶17

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhishek Singh, AC to GA-7

¶18

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶19

Date : 07-01-2025

¶20

Heard Mr. Parth Gaurav, the learned

¶21

Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Singh, the

¶22

learned Advocate for the State.

¶23

The appellant worked as an Executive

¶24

Assistant, Child Development Office, Ramgarhwa on

¶25

contractual appointment for a year which was

¶26

Patna High Court L.P.A No.262 of 2022 dt.07-01-2025 2/3

¶27

extendable. He had joined the service on 18.02.2012 for a period of one year and had got an extension till

¶28

04.03.2014.

¶29

According to him, he was removed unceremoniously on 11.09.2014 for having demanded certain documents to complete his job. That was treated as nuisance in office and he was removed from service.

¶30

The challenge to the afore-noted removal

¶31

could not be sustained primarily on account of the fact that on the date of removal, the contract with the employer never subsisted.

¶32

The issue before the learned Single Judge

¶33

was, therefore, whether the appellant was entitled for a domestic inquiry before his termination from the post of Executive Assistant on contract basis with reference to

¶34

the date of termination as 11.09.2014.

¶35

The Bench decided in the negative and

¶36

rightly so.

¶37

If the appellant has worked beyond

¶38

Patna High Court L.P.A No.262 of 2022 dt.07-01-2025 3/3

¶39

04.03.2014 till the date of his termination, he would be

¶40

entitled to be remunerated for the same, if it is proved

¶41

that he had worked.

¶42

However, since this issue was not addressed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant would have the liberty to approach the appropriate forum for payment of his remuneration for the period that he had worked.

¶43

The L.P.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

¶44

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶45

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶46

manoj/krishna-

¶47

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	08.01.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Deepak Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Banarasi Sah Vs the State of Bihar

Ram Jatan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ramesh Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Ravindra Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Chandani Kumari Vs The State of Bihar