Arjun Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7542 of 2026 ====================================================== Arjun Kumar Ram Son of Late Ram Rup Ram, Resident of village Shukhu gan Chakala, P.S. Madhepura Town, District-Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Secretary, , Rural Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.

2.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa Division, Saharsa. 3.

The District Magistrate, Madhepura.

4.

The Block Development Officer, Kumarkhand Road, Kumarkhand, DistrictMadhepura Bihar -852112. 5.

The Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Singhpur Gardhiya, Block- Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr.Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (6) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 14-05-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Memo No.537 dated 17.03.2026 passed by the then District Magistrate, Madhepura in which the contract of service has been terminated on 17.03.2026 as contained in Annexure-1 to this application.

(ii) To give the direction to Respondent No.3 to restore

Patna High Court CWJC No. 7542 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026 2/2 the contract service because all the three persons exactly similarly situated persons whose termination from service, there are restore the service.

(iii) Issue a Mandamus to Respondent No. 3 to give the arrears of salary since 14,8.2026. Although the Hon'ble Division Bench have set aside the termination order dated 14.8.2018 and Petitioner will assume to continue in Service on 16.3.2026.

And the Hon'ble Court may passed an appropriate order in which petitioner is entitled to him."

3. Learned Counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection and submits that the order impugned has been passed by the District Magistrate who is disciplinary authority and this order is basically an appealable order.

4. In this background, the present writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal before the appropriate authority. It is made clear that the delay, if any, in filing the appeal is hereby directed to be condoned. It is expected that the appellate authority shall pass an order on merit on the appeal filed by the petitioner within the reasonable period in accordance with law.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/Manshi U