Ramdev Mandal Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ramdev Mandal Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief adjudicated. The writ application was disposed of with directions: the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director of the Bhagalpur Central Co-operative Bank Limited within four weeks; the Managing Director (not a party respondent) to decide it in accordance with law within three months of filing; consequential benefits found payable to be paid within three months from the date of the order; and, if the representation is rejected, a reasoned order to be passed and communicated within the aforesaid period.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should issue commanding the respondent authorities to grant suspension allowance to the petitioner for the suspension period between 20.10.2001 and 29.04.2005, following his acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Banka on 29.08.2014 (prayer subsequently conceded as erroneously made and not pressed). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The writ application is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director of the Bhagalpur Central Co-operative Bank Limited for the grievances raised in the instant application, within a period of four weeks.

Key takeaways

If such a representation is filed, the Managing Director of the Bank, though he has not been made a party respondent herein, shall decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of its filing.ratio¶22
Consequential benefits found payable to the petitioner shall be paid within three months from the date of passing of the order.ratio¶24
If the petitioner's representation does not find favour with the authority concerned, the authority shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Partha Sarthy, J), CWJC No.1946 of 2022, disposed of on 06-04-2026. Ramdev Mandal sought (i) suspension allowance for the suspension period 20.10.2001-29.04.2005 on the strength of his acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Banka (judgment dated 29.08.2014), and (ii) fixation of his pay scale and grant of retirement benefits on the footing that juniors received better remuneration after revocation of the suspension. At the hearing counsel conceded the suspension allowance had already been received before filing of the writ, making the first prayer erroneous, and pressed only the pay-fixation/retirement-benefits prayer. Without adjudicating entitlement, the Court disposed of the writ directing a fresh representation to the Managing Director of the Bhagalpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. within four weeks, to be decided in accordance with law within three months; consequential benefits found payable to be paid within three months; and a reasoned order to be communicated if the representation is rejected. No statute or precedent was cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1946 of 2022

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

Ramdev Mandal S/o Ghokrun Mandal Resident of Karharia, Sultanganj Bhagalpur, Bihar- 813201.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar.

The Bhagalpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. through its Chairman.

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priyajeet Pandey, Advocate Ms. Megha, Advocate Mr. Kaustubh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Prakash (GA-13) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

4 06-04-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for

the following relief (s) :-

“1. a) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to suspension allowance to the petitioner pertaining to suspension period between 20.10.2001-29.04.2005 as the petitioner was acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge I, Banka vide judgment dated 29.08.2014.

b) For directing the respondent authorities to fix the pay scale to which the petitioner was entitled and on that basis grant the retirement benefit to the petitioner as the junior colleagues of the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.1946 of 2022(4) dt.06-04-2026 2/3

received better remuneration than the petitioner after revocation of the suspension period. c) For any other order(s), direction(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”

At the outset, it is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner not being aware that he had already received the suspension allowance for the period of suspension even before filing of the writ application, the same was erroneously prayed for. Learned counsel submits that he is pressing only the second prayer made in the writ application which is for directing the respondent authorities to fix the pay-scale to which the petitioner was entitled and grant retirement benefits as persons junior to the petitioner have been given.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director of the Bhagalpur Central Cooperative Bank Limited for the grievances raised in the instant application within a period of four weeks.

In case such a representation is filed, the Managing Director of the Bank, though he has not been made a party respondent herein, shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of its filing.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1946 of 2022(4) dt.06-04-2026 3/3

The consequential benefits found payable to the petitioner shall be paid within three months from the date of passing of the order.

If the representation of the petitioner does not find favour with the authority concerned, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations and directions.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Shiv/-

U