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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ application disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's appeal against the punishment order within three months by a reasoned and speaking order, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. The merits of the punishment order (Memo No. 6716 dated 2.9.2024) were not adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order contained in Memo No. 6716 dated 2.9.2024, withholding three yearly increments with non-cumulative effect and restricting suspension-period payments to subsistence allowance, should be quashed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No. 2 is directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within three months by a reasoned and speaking order, if necessary by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Praveen Kumar, J.), by oral order dated 31-01-2026 in CWJC No. 92 of 2026, disposed of a writ petition filed by Ajay Kumar challenging Memo No. 6716 dated 2.9.2024 issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 (Inspector General (Prison), Bihar), whereby three yearly increments were withheld with non-cumulative effect and it was stipulated that during the suspension period nothing except subsistence allowance would be paid. The petition also sought disposal of the petitioner's appeal against the punishment order, pending before respondent No. 2 (Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home), on which no decision had been taken. Without adjudicating the merits of the punishment, the Court held it expedient to direct respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal, and accordingly directed disposal of the appeal within three months by a reasoned and speaking order, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing, with communication of the decision to the petitioner. No statute or precedent was cited or discussed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.92 of 2026

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

Ajay Kumar Son of Late Girwardhari Prasad, Resident of Village - Hansepur, Police Station-Aungari in the district of Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

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

The Inspector General (Prison), Bihar, Patna.

The Assistant Inspector General (HQ) (Prison), Bihar, Patna.

The Superintendent, Central Jail, Beur, Patna.

The Superintendent, Central Jail, East Champaran at Motihari.

... ... Respondents

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Government Pleader (5), APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2 31-01-2026

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ application for

following relief(s): -

“(I) To quash the order contained in Memo No. 6716 dated 2.9.2024 issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 by which Three yearly increment has been withheld with noncumulative effect as well as during suspension period except subsistence allowance nothing will be paid to the petitioner during Suspension period.

II. Also to direct the respondent no.2 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment contained in

Patna High Court CWJC No.92 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026 2/2

Memo No.6716 dated 2.9.2024.

III. Also for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled by law.”

3. From relief no. 1 (II), it appears that against the order of punishment, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that till date no decision has been taken by respondent No.2 on petitioner’s appeal.

4 . In the interest of justice, it would be expedient that a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner’s appeal.

5. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within three months from today by a reasoned and speaking order, if necessary, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

6. The writ application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(Praveen Kumar, J)

shivam/-

U