Umakant Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5703 of 2026 ====================================================== Umakant Singh S/o Suraj Dev Singh, Resident of Village- Hirapur, Police Station- Dawath, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.
The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.
The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4.
The Additional District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5.
The Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas at Sasaram. 6.
The Sub Divisional Officer -cum- Grievance Redressal Authority, Bikramganj Sub Division, Rohtas at Sasaram.
7.
The Block Development Officer, Dawath Block, Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Standing Counsel (08) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-04-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Grievance Redressal Authority, Bikramganj Sub-Division, Rohtas at Sasaram. With further prayer to direct the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram or to the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Grievance Redressal Authority,
2/4 Bikramganj Sub Division, Rohtas at Sasaram to reconsider the case of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to consider the reliable documents produced by the petitioner.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially petitioner was appointed by the Block Development Officer, Dawath Block, Rohtas at Sasaram vide order contained in Memo No.04 dated 19.01.2017. The name of petitioner was appearing at serial No.14 of the order dated 19.01.2017. Counsel submits that the petitioner was discharging the duty as per guidelines and under the direction of the controlling authority. The payment at the initial stage was made to the petitioner @ Rs.30,000/- lump sum in the account of Bank of India, Bikramganj Branch, Rohtas at Sasaram. Counsel submits that petitioner is entitled for higher remuneration for Rs.500/- for the last nine months and the said amount of Rs.15,400/- has not been paid to him, in this regard the petitioner had made representation dated 19.05.2025 vide Annexure-P/3 to District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. Learned Counsel submits that further representation has been made to the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Grievance Redressal Authority, Bikramganj Sub Division, Rohtas at
3/4 Sasaram on 05.07.2025. Counsel submits that the Block Development Officer, Dawath Block, Rohtas at Sasaram has issued letter on 25.07.2017 and transferred the amount for payment to the ICICI Bank, Rohtas at Sasaram Branch in which the name of the petitioner has figured at serial No.30, but the said amount has not been credited in the respective account of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that in this regard the petitioner has also made representation to the Block Development Officer, Dawath, Rohtas at Sasaram, for irregular selection of the Supervisor on 18.10.2022. Counsel further submits that petitioner has made application for selection to the post of Supervisor on 01.08.2023. All the local bodies recommended the petitioner for Supervisor but petitioner was not selected and instead thereof some other person have been selected. Counsel submits that his case has not been considered at all and when petitioner filed objection, then vide order dated 26.06.2025 his claim was rejected indicating that other one Kiran Kumari was selected as Supervisor.
5. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that petitioner has basically challenged the order passed in his complaint by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Grievance Redressal Authority, against which there is a liberty to him to
4/4 prefer appeal before the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, being the first appellate authority.
6. In this view of the matter, this Court without entering into the merit or demerit of the case, grants liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal against the said impugned order dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure-P/1) before the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, within 30 days from today. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, after hearing all concerned shall pass order within reasonable time. The delay, if any, in filing the appeal is directed to be condoned.
7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 20.04.2026 Transmission Date