Disposed¶36

Anil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Jun 2026CWJC/12778/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anil Kumar v. State of Bihar; Patna High Court CWJC No.12778 of 2025; order dated 15-06-2026; Justice Alok Kumar Sinha; pay fixation; trained graduate pay scale; Rule 22(1)(A) and 7(i)-(iv) of the fundaments rules; Promotion Rules 2011 Rule 8; promotion to headmaster; consequential benefits since 1985; arrears of salary; District Education Officer Khagaria; fresh representation; reasoned and speaking order; time-bound disposal; writ disposed of with consent.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation before the District Education Officer, Khagaria (respondent no. 5) within one month; the DEO directed to dispose of it within three months of receipt, after giving an opportunity of hearing, by a reasoned and speaking order; any relief found due to be extended within a further three months from the final order.

Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing fixation of his salary in the trained graduate pay scale under Rule 22(1)(A) and 7(i)-(iv) of the 'fundaments rules' (with one additional increment on promotion-fixation), together with arrears from the date the trained graduate scale was granted. +1 more

¶22

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of both parties, the writ application was disposed of at the threshold itself, granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before the District Education Officer, Khagaria within one month.

¶33

Key takeaways

If the representation is filed within the stipulated time, the District Education Officer, Khagaria is directed to dispose of it within three months of its receipt, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.ratio¶33
The final order to be passed by the District Education Officer, Khagaria must be a reasoned and speaking order.ratio¶35
If the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed through the representation, the same must be extended to him within a further period of three months from the date of the DEO's final order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Alok Kumar Sinha, J.), CWJC No.12778 of 2025, order dated 15-06-2026: writ by Anil Kumar seeking mandamus for pay fixation in the trained graduate pay scale under Rule 22(1)(A) and 7(i)-(iv) of the 'fundaments rules' and promotion to the graduate trained scale and headmaster post under the Promotion Rules 2011 (Rule 8) with consequential benefits since 1985, was disposed of at the threshold with the consent of both parties, without adjudicating the substantive reliefs. Liberty was granted to file a fresh representation before the District Education Officer, Khagaria within one month; the DEO is to decide it within three months of receipt after hearing the petitioner, by a reasoned and speaking order; any entitlement flowing from that order is to be implemented within a further three months. Pending interlocutory applications deemed disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12778 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Anil Kumar Son of Ram Ji Sahu Resident of Mal Godam Road, Khagaria, P.S.- Khagaria, District- Khagaria.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretary, Patna.

¶7

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

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretary, Patna.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Khagaria,

¶10

The District Education Officer, Khagaria.

¶11

The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Khagaria.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sweta Raj, Adv For the Respondent/s : Ms. Kumari Anu, Government Pleader (3) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP 3 ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶15

3 15-06-2026

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶17

counsel for the respondent-State.

¶18

With the consent of both the parties, this writ

¶19

application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

¶20

In the present writ application, the petitioner has

¶21

prayed for the grant of following reliefs:

¶22

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities for fixation of salary of the petitioner in

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.12778 of 2025(3) dt.15-06-2026

¶24

2/4

¶25

the trained graduate pay scale in view of the provision contained in Rule 22(1)(A), 7(i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) of the fundaments rules which inter alia provides that for the purpose of pay fixation on promotion, the salary payable on the date of promotion would be fixed and thereafter pay fixation would be done after giving benefits of one additional-1 increment of the existing pay scale and to pay arrears of salary of the petitioner after aforesaid fixation from the date when has been granted trained graduate pay scale by the respondent authorities.

¶26

(ii) To further direct the respondent authorities as per promotion rule 2011 (Rule 8) to grant promotion in the graduate trained scale as well as on the post of headmaster to the petitioner and their consequential benefits since 1985.

¶27

(iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) order(s) direction(s) for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

(iv) And/or any other

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.12778 of 2025(3) dt.15-06-2026 3/4

¶30

appropriate reliefs to the petitioner for which payable may found entitle under the fact and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

After advancing some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for seeking the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner is prepared to file a fresh representation before the District Education Officer, Khagaria. He further prays that an appropriate direction be issued to the District Education Officer, Khagaria to dispose of the representation which would be filed by the petitioner within a fixed time frame, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶32

To the aforesaid prayer being made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent-State does not have any objection.

¶33

Considering the limited nature of prayer being made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ application is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 5 i.e. the District Education Officer, Khagaria within one month from today. If such a representation is filed within the stipulated time then the District Education Officer, Khagaria is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.12778 of 2025(3) dt.15-06-2026 4/4

¶35

the representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to emphasize that the final order which shall be passed by the District Education Officer, Khagaria should be a reasoned and speaking order. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to the relief, which the petitioner would be claiming through the representation, the same should be extended to the petitioner within a further period of three months from the date of passing of the final order by the District Education Officer, Khagaria.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation/direction and liberty granted, this writ application is disposed of. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also be deemed to have been disposed of.

¶37

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

¶38

kiran/-

¶39

Anil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Kumar @ Ramishwar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kameshwar Singh Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department

Rohini Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Navodita Priyadarshani Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar