Dinesh Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 2762 of 2026 ====================================================== Dinesh Prasad Yadav S/o Late Shivlal Yadav, Resident of Village- Kakoda, Ward No. 06, P.O.- Jokihat, Bagnagar, P.S.- Mahalgaon, District- Araria (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director General-cum-Commandant General, Home Guard, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director General, Bihar Home Guards Department, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Araria.

5.

The Superintendent of Police, Araria, Bihar.

6.

The SHO-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Alamganj, Patna, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr Anant Prasad Singh, SC XV with Ms Deepika Sharma, AC to SC XV ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:

(i) For direction/order to the respondent authority concern respondent No 4 (the Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Araria) to command the respondent No 5 (SP, Araria) and respondent No 6 (SHO, Alamganj, Patna) where from the petitioner was retired on 02 Jan 2024 and the matter of petitioner was considered for further five years as extended service as per rule of Bihar Home Guard Service Amendment Rule, 2010 and the petitioner after consideration allowed with Camman for deputation at Bhagalpur where the petitioner done his duty as per Camman and also get salary for his work done.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2762 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026 2/3 (ii) For direction/order further to the respondents concern to consider the matter of rest extended duty of four years since (near about one year duty of extend service as done by the petitioner) for which due to otherwise reasons neither handover the Camman to the petitioner nor refused for the Camman in writing to the petitioner and the authority concern kept the petitioner in pendulum condition and precious time of extended period of service after retirement are being spoiled by them and without Camman it is impossible for the petitioner to do anything for the department work at anywhere and in such manner the petitioner is deprived from his livelihood and such act of the authority concern in nothing but a financial punishment for the petitioner in his old age.

(iii) For other consequential relief/reliefs to the petitioner for which he is entitled to get in future four years extended service.

(iv) For other relief/reliefs as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in the matter."

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner gave his joining as a Home Guard on 05.11.1988 and, after serving in the different places, retired from service on 02.01.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner undergone training of 28 days and was sent to Bhagalpur for some period, but the authorities concerned are not paying heed to his request to extend his service for a further period of five years. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

Patna High Court CWJC No.2762 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026 3/3 submits that the petitioner has filed a representation contained in Annexures P-4 and P-4/1 to the writ petition. From perusal of Annexures P-4 and P-4/1, it would transpire that the petitioner has submitted a representation before the Commandant, Home Guard, Araria wth a request to change his date of birth from 02.01.1964 to 02.01.1969 and to extend his service for five years. 4 The learned counsel for the State submits that after retirement of the petitioner, he has filed the representation for correction in the date of birth which is not permissible and that too without any document.

5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the present writ petition, since admittedly the petitioner retired on 02.01.2024 and till his retirement, he never raised any grievance with regard to his date of birth, to be incorrect and now after almost two years after his retirement he woke up from slumber and has filed the present case.

6 Accordingly, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.

(Ritesh Kumar, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.02.2026 Transmission Date NA