Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kameshwar Prasad Gupta ( Gp 10 ) For the AG, Bihar : Mrs. Ritika Rani, Advocate ======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶18

4 24-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶19

petitioner; learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for

¶20

the AG, Bihar.

¶21

Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following

¶22

reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-

¶23

“i. To issue a writ on the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondent authorities to release the retiral dues amount with statutory interest in favour of the petitioner.

¶24

ii. To direct the respondent authorities to pay the other consequential dues in favour of the petitioners.

¶25

iii. To direct the respondents authorities to fix the pension of the petitioner on the last pay received by the petitioner.

¶26

iv. Any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner found entitled.”

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.15724 of 2023(4) dt.24-07-2026 2/3

¶28

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State informs that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, and in paragraphs no.6 and 7 thereof, details information regarding payment under different heads of retiral dues has been given.

¶29

The petitioner is not entitled for a sum of Rs.3,30,479 on account of advance under a Government scheme as he has not submitted work satisfaction certificate.

¶30

I find that any work which is carried in a Panchayat under different scheme of the Government, the responsibility of the Junior Engineer is to maintain the measurement book as per the PHED Code. In the present case, unilateral deduction of the amount from the retiral dues of the petitioner appears to be not in accordance with law. Accordingly, I direct the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar to call upon the service particulars of the petitioner along with the work, which was assigned to him and the measurement book in respect of such work, which was not completed and that facilitated to deduct Rs.3,30,479/-, in absence of any specific information in respect of the period during which payment was done for the work allegedly not done.

¶31

The Additional Chief Secretary is directed to pass a

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.15724 of 2023(4) dt.24-07-2026 3/3

¶33

reasoned order, based on the entire evidence in support of the allegation by giving reason that the petitioner has illegally gained a sum of Rs.3,30,479/-, if not then the action can only be rendered illegal, resulting into for payment of the amount, which has not been legally withheld, within a period of 6 weeks

¶34

form the date of communication of this order.

¶35

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶36

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶37

Sanjay/-

¶38

U

Rajendra Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Neelam Vs The State of Bihar

Vijoy Kant Choubey Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Narayan Mehata Vs The State of Bihar

Mridula Sahay Vs The State of Bihar

Mithilesh Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Prasad Vs The State of Bihar