Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.704 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Manoj Kumar Son of Ashok Kumar Verma, Resident of Village - naya Tola, Lakhisarai, P.S. - Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai.

¶4

Chhabila Yadav Son of Gobardhan Yadav Resident of Village - Giddha, Ward no. 5, P.S. - Halsi, District- Lakhisarai.

¶5

Gautam Kumar Son of Sunil Singh Resident of Village - Salempur, P.S. Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai.

¶6

Jaikishor Kumar Son of Kamta Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Salempur, P.S. - Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai.

¶7

Pramod Kumar Son of Brahamdev Yadav Resident of Village - Giddha, P.S. - Halsi, District- Lakhisarai.

¶8

... ... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Director of Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶12

The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Lakhisarai.

¶13

The District Veterinary Officer, Lakhisarai.

¶14

The Mobile Veterinary Officer, Lakhisarai.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance :

¶18

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satya Vrat (AC to GP-10)

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶21

3 23-06-2026

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶23

counsel for the State.

¶24

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-

¶25

“I. For issuing a direction upon the respondents authority to absorb the petitioners in the Animal Husbandry Department, who have experience of private animal vaccination

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.704 of 2025(3) dt.23-06-2026 2/3

¶27

worker since log period, all of the petitioners are serving their duties at the rate of Rs. 4/ to 9/- rupees per vaccination of Animal which is lowest payment to service.

¶28

II. For issuance of a direction upon the respondent authority to disposed the representation dated 10.05.2024 filed by the petitioners.

¶29

III. Any other relief / reliefs may be granted to the petitioners for which found entitled to.”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners had earlier moved before this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3866 of 2024 which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 04.04.2024 with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondents authority for redressal of their grievances. Counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioners have filed representation in light of the liberty granted to them vide order dated 04.04.2024. But, on their representation, order has not been passed, then the petitioners have filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayers.

¶31

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that in compliance of the order dated 04.04.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3866 of 2024, the petitioners’ representation was considered and the same was rejected. Counsel further

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.704 of 2025(3) dt.23-06-2026 3/3

¶33

submits that 90 other similarly situated persons have moved before this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6303 of 2020 with the same relief and their representation has also been rejected with a reasoned order. He further submits that the work which the respondent authorities are taking is of vaccination and payment has been made per vaccination. It is not a continuous work. As and when the situation arise, the work on payment basis has to be taken. Counsel submits that the post of vaccination is not a sanctioned post and as a policy matter, there is no provision for absorption of persons whose services have been taken for vaccination purpose.

¶34

Since, it is a policy matter of the State, this Court upon considering the pleadings, is of the view that there is no policy with regard to regularization or absorption of the persons engaged in vaccination work who are paid on a per-vaccination basis. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners.

¶35

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶36

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶37

Divyansh/-

¶38

U

Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramtawakeya Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Pashupati Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Baijanti Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Hafeez Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary

Phuleshwar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar