Dismissed¶31

Brahma Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC14 Jul 2025CWJC/2532/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractual employee; no vested right to renewal of contract; dispensation of services on implication in criminal case; Sheohar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2015; Executive Assistant; Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (BSFC); Bihar State Food Corporation; employment letter stipulation (Memo No. 301 dated 08.01.2016, Annexure-6); re-engagement refused (order dated 30.08.2018); refund of Rs.25,000/- security deposit; writ petition dismissed; Patna High Court CWJC No. 2532 of 2019; Justice Harish Kumar; decided 14-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a proper application for refund of the security money of Rs.25,000/-, to be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law ¶31

Brahma Kumar Vs The State of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file a proper application for refund of the security money of Rs.25,000/-, to be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a contractual Executive Assistant whose services were dispensed with after he came to be implicated as an accused in Sheohar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2015, was entitled to re-engagement/renewal of his contract notwithstanding the criminal case against him. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

A contractual employee has no vested right to get his contract renewed in the absence of any rules, regulations or stipulations made in the agreement to contract.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The stipulations in the subject employment letter mandate that where a contractual employee indulges in irregularities or a criminal case is instituted against him, his services shall be dispensed with immediately.

¶29

Key takeaways

The petitioner's complicity in Sheohar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2015 was found during investigation and he was implicated as an accused; accordingly, the impugned order does not suffer any infirmity.ratio¶28
Notwithstanding dismissal, the petitioner is at liberty to file a proper application for refund of his security money, which the concerned authority shall consider in accordance with law.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, CWJC No. 2532 of 2019 (Harish Kumar, J., oral judgment dated 14-07-2025) - Dismissed. The petitioner, engaged as Executive Assistant on contract on 24.12.2011 and serving to the authorities' satisfaction till 31.10.2016 with repeated extensions, had his services dispensed with without notice after Sheohar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2015 (lodged 20.04.2015) was filed and he came to be implicated as an accused during investigation; his request for re-engagement was rejected by order dated 30.08.2018. Held: a contractual employee has no vested right to renewal of contract absent rules, regulations or stipulations in the agreement; the employment letter (Memo No. 301 dated 08.01.2016, Annexure-6) expressly permitted immediate dispensation of services where the employee indulges in irregularities or a criminal case is instituted against him; the petitioner's complicity having been found during investigation, the rejection order suffered no infirmity. The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was given liberty to apply for refund of his Rs.25,000/- security deposit, to be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2532 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Brahma Kumar Krishndev Sah, resident of Village Basahia Shekh, P.O. Piprahi, P.S. Piprahi, District- Sheohar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Food and Supply Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶8

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food Corporation, Patna.

¶9

The Chief Administrator, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Khadya Bhawan, Darogarai Path, R- Block, Road No. 2, Patna.

¶10

The Mission Director cum Principal Secretary, General Administration Department Mission Society, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶11

The District Magistrate, District- Sheohar.

¶12

The District Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation, Sheohar.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumod Kumar Shrivastaw, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC- 4 For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

Date : 14-07-2025

¶20

Heard the parties.

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 30.08.2018 by which the claim of the petitioner for consideration of his re-engagement on the post of Executive Assistant stood rejected. A prayer has also been made to refund the security amount of Rs.25,000/-, which was deposited through draft with the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BSFC’).

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.2532 of 2019 dt.14-07-2025 2/4

¶23

Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the materials available on record contended that the petitioner was duly appointed as Executive Assistant on 24.12.2011 and he discharged the duty to the entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned till 31.10.2016. His period of contract, on being found satisfactory, has been extended all along. While the petitioner was posted in Dumari Katsari Block, an F.I.R. came to be lodged, bearing Sheohar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2015 on 20.04.2015; only on account of the aforesaid reason, the services of the petitioner dispensed with, without any notice.

¶24

It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. nor his specific complicity has come; nonetheless, during the course of investigation the petitioner has been made accused along with other accused of the case. The Authority should at list wait for the outcome of the criminal proceeding, but unfortunately his services have been dispensed with. The request of the petitioner for re-engagement also came to be turned down, hence the present writ petition.

¶25

Learned Advocate for the BSFC, referring to the employment letter has vehemently contended that there is a clear stipulation that any of the contractual employee, if found

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.2532 of 2019 dt.14-07-2025 3/4

¶27

indulging in corrupt practice or made accused in relation to any criminal case, his/her services can be dispensed with with immediate effect. Referring to Clause 5 of the employment letter as contained in Memo No. 301 dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure-6) it is further contended that in case the services of any of the contractual employee is not extended, it shall be deemed to be cancelled.

¶28

Admittedly the complicity of the petitioner has been found during the investigation in relation to Sheohar P.S. case no. 86 of 2015, whereafter his name has been implicated as an accused, hence the order does not suffer any infirmity.

¶29

Having considered the submissions, this Court finds substance in the submissions of learned Advocate for the BSFC. A contractual employee has no vested right to get his contract renewed without their being any rules and regulations or stipulations made in the agreement to contract. Stipulations made in the subject employment letter clearly mandate that in case the contractual employee found indulge in any irregularities or there is any criminal case instituted against him, his services shall be dispensed with immediately. The facts are admitted to the extent of the petitioner being implicated in a criminal case.

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.2532 of 2019 dt.14-07-2025 4/4

¶31

This Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a proper application for refund of his security money, which shall be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law.

¶32

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶33

uday/-

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	18.07.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Brahma Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahma Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Shanichar Raut Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Saheli Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Rajeshwar Rao Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Lalit Vijay Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Jyoti Kumar Verma @ Jyoti Verma Vs The State of Bihar