Ajay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

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

1.

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

2.

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

3.

The Inspector General (Prison), Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Assistant Inspector General (HQ) (Prison), Bihar, Patna. 5.

The Superintendent, Central Jail, Beur, Patna. 6.

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 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