Partly allowed

Rameshwar Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Aug 2026CWJC/12230/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Assistant teacher whose appointment was cancelled despite Supreme Court protection, sought salary arrears and pension benefits. Comparing his case with analogous judgments where benefits were granted to similarly situated teachers, the Court directed authorities to extend similar treatment. If the petitioner falls under the protected list, he must be paid all dues within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to extend similar treatment; if appointment covers Supreme Court protection, then all consequential benefits including salary arrears must be paid within six weeks.

Rameshwar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12230 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Rameshwar Mahto S/o Late Bangali Mahto, Resident of Village-Kamrawan, P.O.-Kamrawan, P.S.-DalsinghSarai, District-Samastipur, Pin Code-848114 (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

¶10

The District Education Officer, Samastipur.

¶11

The District Program Officer, Eastablisment, Samastipur.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shweta Kumari For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (16)

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶18

2 13-08-2026

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶20

counsel for the State.

¶21

The instant writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶22

(i) For commanding the respondent authorities to release and pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from 23.09.2013 (date of termination) till the date of his reinstatement in service pursuant to Office Order as contained in Memo No.480 dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure-11) issued jointly by the District Education Officer, Samastipur and the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Samastipur, as the termination order was passed on wholly untenable grounds, denial of consequential benefits is illegal,

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.12230 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 2/6

¶24

arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly when similarly situated persons have already been granted salary for their termination periods.

¶25

(ii) For commanding the respondent authorities to forthwith finalize, sanction and disburse all postretiral and pensionary benefits of the petitioner, who superannuated on 31.01.2026 from the post of Assistant Teacher posted at Up-graded Middle School, Padribishant under the district of Samastipur.

¶26

(iii) For a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay interest at a reasonable rate (not less than 9% per annum) on the delayed payment of salary arrears till the actual date of disbursement, so as to compensate the petitioner for wrongful deprivation of his lawful dues.

¶27

(iv) For a declaration that the petitioner having been appointed pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Case No.297/2007, could not have been terminated in view of the specific directions of the Apex Court dated 18.07.2013 in SLP (Civil) No.26824/2012, and that such termination was wholly baseless and unsustainable in law; and for a consequential declaration that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of salary for the termination period, in terms of the judgment rendered in LPA No.1254/2016 and analogous matters.

¶28

(v) For any other relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶30

petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and he was one amongst the 34,540 candidates whose selection was approved

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.12230 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 3/6

¶32

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The entire merit list was scrutinized by a Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay (Retd.), which was duly accepted by the Apex Court. In compliance thereof, the State Government appointed candidates strictly from the said approved list. The petitioner was accordingly appointed vide Memo No.1543 dated 15.02.2012 issued jointly by the District Education Officer and the District Programme Officer (Estd.), Samastipur, and was posted at Upgraded Middle School, Padribishant, District- Samastipur.

¶33

It is further submitted that, in a very arbitrary manner, the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled vide Office Order Memo No.4774 dated 23.09.2013, despite specific orders and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 18.07.2013 in SLP (Civil) No.26824/2012, which unambiguously directs protection for persons appointed from the approved list as against the vacancies of 34,540. It is further submitted that under the pretext of verification, the petitioner’s services were terminated holding that he obtained his degree from an unauthorized institution.

¶34

It has next been submitted that termination order issued in respect of the petitioner vide office order dated

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.12230 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 4/6

¶36

23.09.2013, was challenged before this Hon’ble Court vide CWJC No.23237 of 2018. The said writ petition was allowed along with CWJC No.6718 of 2018 and other analogous cases vide order dated 26.09.2023 by directing the respondents in following manner:-

¶37

“Having regard to the submission noted hereinabove, in view of the developments in the form of Hon’ble Division Bench judgment in LPA No.1254 of 2016 and other analogous cases, this Court sets aside the impugned orders of termination of the petitioners in the respective writ applications and directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners keeping in view of the Bihar Litigation Policy, 2011 in the light of the judgments of this Court rendered in LPA No.1254 of 2016 and other analogous matters, LPA No.1309 of 2017 and LPA No.1310 of 2017 and grants similar benefits to the petitioners as have been given to the other terminated teachers of the said list.”

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that orders passed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench and Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in similarly situated cases, the respondents have been directed to make payment of salary to teachers who remained out of service. However, for unexplained reasons, similar treatment has not been extended to the petitioner despite references having been made of those judgments in his representations. The termination and denial of

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.12230 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 5/6

¶40

salary to the petitioner, while others have received benefits, is arbitrary and contemptuous in nature, based on pick and choose treatment without valid reason. The principle of “no work, no pay” cannot apply here because it is their own action which kept this petitioner out of service and further no such consideration has been made in case of other similarly situated persons, as they have have been paid salary despite non-working periods, in compliance with the Hon’ble Division Bench’s orders.

¶41

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has also passed orders in Dinesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Others vide order dated 02.09.2025 in CWJC No.14158 of 2025, directing payment of salary for the period the petitioner remained out of service.

¶42

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner’s case may be directed to be considered afresh by the competent authority in light of the judgment passed in LPA No. 1254/2016 and other analogous matters, particularly taking into account the documents annexed as Annexure P/8 series, wherein benefits have already been extended to similarly situated persons.

¶43

Considering the submissions, this application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to extend similar

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.12230 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 6/6

¶45

treatment to the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the One-Man Committee headed by Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay (Rtd.) and his case is covered under the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.26824/2012 dated 18.07.2013, then all consequential benefits, including salary for the period having remained out of service, shall be paid to him within a period of six weeks from the date of production or receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

(Ajit Kumar, J)

¶47

shikha/-

¶48

Rameshwar Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Murari Vs The State of Bihar

Subhash Chandra Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Mahto @ Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sakaldeep Chaudhary Vs Chalitar Chaudhary

Prince Raj Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Pratap Singh Vs The State of Bihar