Patna High Court
Md. Mahmood vs The State Of Bihar on 16 July, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25050 of 2019
======================================================
Md. Mahmood, S/o Late Md. Abid, Resident of Agrawaltola, P.S.- Alamganj,
District- Patna-7.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director (Press), Printing and Stationary, Department of Finance,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Superintendent, Bihar Secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, Patna-7.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, AC to GP- 24
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-07-2025
Heard the parties.
2. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner
submits that since during the pendency of the writ petition, the
petitioner has already retired on 31.01.2025, hence his entire
claim is confined to the payment of 20% of the substantive pay
of the post of Binder, including the pay scale of the Binder since
22.08.1989
till the date on which vacancy arose on the post of
Assistant Cameraman-cum-Plate maker in, 2005 and further to
grant consequential benefit to the post of Assistant Cameraman-
cum- Plate maker with effect from the date of his posting on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.25050 of 2019 dt.16-07-2025
2/6
said post; as also the payment of difference of higher post of
Senior Cameraman-cum- Plate maker with effect from
19.04.2014 when this post became vacant due to death of
Navashish Mitra. The petitioner also assailed the order dated
21.10.2019 whereby the petitioner has only been granted
Rs.250/- per month for the work done on the said post, from the
date of issuance of Memo, which is said to be in the teeth of the
order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in
L.P.A. No. 517 of 1998 and further in L.P.A. No. 1647 of 1999,
as also in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors. Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in, (2013) 4 SCC 152
and in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal,
reported in, 2017 (4) PLJR 46 (SC).
3. Referring to the materials available on record,
learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that there is no
dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the sanctioned post
of Binder on 22.08.1989 in the Government Secretariat Press,
Gulzarbagh, Patna. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was
directed to discharge the duty of Assistant Cameraman -cum-
Platemaker along with other Assistant Cameraman-cum-
Platemaker, namely, Navashish Mitra and Sachindranath
Chatterjee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.25050 of 2019 dt.16-07-2025
3/6
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was further
deputed for different periods to discharge the duty of
Cameraman-cum-Plate maker. To support the aforesaid
contention, various annexures have been appended to the writ
petition. On account of suspension of Navashish Mitra, later on,
the petitioner was directed to discharge the duty in processing
department for certain period and later on after the death of
Navashish Mitra on 19.04.2014, the petitioner was directed to
execute the work of Senior Cameraman-cum-Plate maker,
pursuant to the letter no. 709 dated 26.06.2019. Despite the
aforesaid facts, when the services of the petitioner was not
regularized on the higher post, he approached this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 15344 of 2019 for his absorption and
consequential benefit. The said writ petition came to be
disposed of on 02.08.2019 with a liberty to the petitioner to
represent before the Superintendent, Bihar Secretariat Press,
Gulzarbagh, Patna. In consequent to the order of this Court, a
letter dated 14.09.2019 came to be issued by the respondent
no.5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, the respondent no.3
erroneously passed the final order dated 21.10.2019 and the
petitioner has been allowed only Rs.250/- per month in addition
to the salary received by him.
Patna High Court CWJC No.25050 of 2019 dt.16-07-2025
4/6
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order
impugned is in the teeth of the settled law and in fact in
complete disregard of Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code. To
support the aforesaid contention, heavy reliance has been placed
on the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench in
L.P.A. No. 517 of 1998 and further in L.P.A. No. 1647 of 1999.
Reliance has further been placed on the decision rendered in the
case of Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors., reported in, (2013) 4 SCC 152 and in the case
of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal, reported in, 2017
(4) PLJR 46 (SC).
6. Taking this Court through the aforesaid decision,
learned Advocate for the petitioner thus contended that the
claim of the petitioner has not been considered in right
perspective in terms of the law settled by the Apex Court as well
as learned Division Bench of this Court.
7. Mr. Anuj Kumar, learned Advocate for the State
refuting the contention of the petitioner submitted that at no
point of time there is any specific order directing the petitioner
to discharge the duty on the higher post, it was only a temporary
arrangement for certain period, for which the claim of the
petitioner was duly considered and he was allowed Rs.250/- per
Patna High Court CWJC No.25050 of 2019 dt.16-07-2025
5/6
month, in addition to the salary received by him in pursuant to
the order, as contained in Memo No. 8542 dated 21.10.2019
(Annexure-16 to the writ petition).
8. Having heard the learned Advocate for the
respective parties and taking note of the decision rendered by
the learned Division Bench of this Court wherein the learned
Division Bench referring to Rules 89 and 103 of the Bihar
Service Code has held that in case of a person is directed to
discharge the duties and responsibilities of greater importance
than those attached to the post then held by the employee, in
such circumstances the employee is entitled to higher pay scale,
if his appointment to that post stood alone. Identical view has
also been taken by the learned Division Bench in different cases.
9. Considering the aforenoted settled position and
the submission of the petitioner that his case also requires
consideration in terms with the decisions aforenoted, this Court
in order to give quietus to the litigation thinks it appropriate to
direct the respondent no.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner
in the light of the aforenoted decisions rendered by the learned
Division Bench and the Apex Court.
10. The petitioner shall be at liberty to place all the
relevant necessary documents before the respondent no.3 in
Patna High Court CWJC No.25050 of 2019 dt.16-07-2025
6/6
order to reinforce his case that he was allowed to do work on
higher post preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
11. In case, such representation is filed along with
necessary documents and the orders/judgments aforenoted, in
such circumstances, the concerned respondent shall consider the
claim of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned
and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks.
12. Suffice it to observe that in case the claim of the
petitioner finds favour, necessary consequential order shall be
passed.
13. This disposes the writ petition.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 21.07.2025 Transmission Date NA