Santosh Mallick vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13246 of 2026
======================================================
Santosh Mallick Son of Shri Sushil Mallick, Resident of Ali Hussain Chowk,
Ward No. 09, Post and Police Station and Block- Bahadurganj, District-
Kishanganj (Bihar), 855101.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kishanganj, Bihar.
3. The Block Development Officer (Prarambhik Vikas Padhyadhikari),
Bahadurganj, District Kishanganj, Bihar.
4. The Labour Commissioner, Kishanganj, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, GP-22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
“a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,
commanding the Respondents, particularly
Respondent No. 3, to forthwith reinstate the
Petitioner in service as Safai Karmi at Block
Office, Bahadurganj, Kishanganj with all
consequential service benefits;
b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,
commanding the Respondents to pay to the
Petitioner all back wages and emoluments from
the date of illegal removal i.e. 14.08.2025 till the
date of actual reinstatement;
c. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing

Patna High Court CWJC No.13246 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
2/8
and setting aside the illegal and arbitrary
removal of the Petitioner from service effected
on 14.08.2025;
d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing
the Respondents to regularize the services of the
Petitioner in view of his approximately 20 years
of continuous and unblemished service;
e. Issue appropriate directions to the
Respondents directing payment of compensation
to the Petitioner for the illegal, arbitrary and
inhuman removal from service;
f. Pass any other order or direction as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case;
g. Award costs of this petition to the
Petitioner.”
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed/engaged as Safai Karmchari
(Sweeper) at the Block Office, Bahadurganj, Kishanganjon
03.02.3006. At the time of his initial appointment, the
remuneration was fixed at Rs. 500/- per month, which was
subsequently enhanced by the department over the years to Rs.
9,828/- per month, which is the last wage, which the petitioner
was getting. The petitioner continuously served for almost 20
years and was being made payment through cheques in his bank
account in Central Bank of India. The Block Development
Office, Bahadurganj issued Experience Certificate in favour of
the petitioner on 22.07.2022 whereby it was stated that the
petitioner has performed his duties of Sweeper w.e.f. 03.02.2006

Patna High Court CWJC No.13246 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
3/8
till 01.07.2022.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that the wages for the month of March, 2014 was also not paid,
therefore, the petitioner filed a representation before the Block
Development Officer, Bahadurganj. He submits that all of a
sudden on 14.08.2025 without any prior notice, the petitioner
has been removed from service by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the
Block Development Officer, Bahadurganj on a telephonic
communication made by the Clerk. No order of
removal/termination has ever been issued. He submits that the
the petitioner filed a representation on 12.09.2025, bringing it to
the notice of the authorities concerned, however, no action has
been taken. The petitioner was constrained to file a
representation before the Labour Commissioner, Kishanganj on
12.09.2025, however, no action was taken by the Labour
Commissioner. He submits that the petitioner has been deprived
of his livelihood and has not been permitted to work w.e.f.
12.09.2025, despite the fact that he was appointed to perform
the duties of sweeper w.e.f. 03.02.2006. He submits that at least
Principle of natural justice was required to be followed, before
terminating the petitioner from service and admittedly, no notice
or show-cause has been issued to the petitioner, before

Patna High Court CWJC No.13246 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
4/8
terminating his services from the post of sweeper.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner to support his
contention refers to and relies upon a judgement of this Hon’ble
Court reported in 2026 1 BLJ 584 (Madhwi Jha & Ors. vs.
Patna University through its Registrar & Ors.) wherein
paragraphs no. 37 and 40 to 43, it has been held as follows:-
“37. The principle of “last-come-first-go” is an
integral facet of fair labour practice and has
consistently been applied to cases involving
retrenchment or disengagement of daily wage,
ad hoc, or temporary employees. The underlying
rationale of the principle is to ensure that senior
employees are not arbitrarily singled out for
termination while juniors are retained, unless
cogent and demonstrable reasons exist to justify
such deviation.
40. Notably, the respondents have failed to
explain as to why the petitioners only were
discontinued while the aforesaid similarly
situated daily wage employees were retained.
There is no assertion that the petitioners were
junior-most, nor is there any material to suggest
that her disengagement was necessitated due to
abolition of post, lack of work, or administrative
exigency. The absence of any such justification
renders the action ex facie arbitrary.
41. The selective discontinuation of the
petitioners, despite their long-standing service,
clearly demonstrates a departure from the
principle of “last-come-first-go”. Such
departure, in the absence of rational and

Patna High Court CWJC No.13246 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
5/8
recorded reasons, amounts to hostile
discrimination. The action of the respondents
thus fails the test of reasonableness and non-
arbitrariness, which is the cornerstone of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Further, by
treating the petitioners unequally vis-à-vis other
similarly placed employees in matters relating to
public employment, the respondents have also
infringed Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
42. It is trite that even daily wage employees are
entitled to protection against arbitrary State
action and they are certainly entitled to equal
treatment and fairness in disengagement. The
impugned action, viewed in light of the
continued engagement of juniors and similarly
situated persons, therefore cannot be sustained.
Further, the respondents have not placed on
record any reasons, much less recorded reasons,
justifying departure from the statutory norm of
last-come-first-go. In the absence of such
recorded justification, the selective retrenchment
of the petitioner, while retaining juniors, is in
direct contravention of Section 25-G of the
Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that
compliance with Section 25-G is not an empty
formality but a substantive safeguard intended to
prevent arbitrary and discriminatory
retrenchment. Any retrenchment effected in
violation of the said provision is rendered legally
unsustainable.
43. Accordingly, this Court holds that the
discontinuation of the petitioners, in disregard of
the principle of last-come-first-go, while
retaining similarly situated and junior daily
wage employees , is arbitrary, discriminatory,

Patna High Court CWJC No.13246 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
6/8
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.”
ISSUE V: Whether the reliance placed by the respondents
on State Government policy decisions, including embargo on
appointments and outsourcing policy, can legally sustain the impugned
action, when the petitioner’s disengagement is not shown to be a
consequence of abolition of post or outsourcing?
6. He further refers to and relies on a judgment passed
in Civil Appeal No. 13783 of 2015 (Union of India & Ors. vs.
Baliram) , wherein at paragraphs no. 37, 38, it has been held as
follows:-
“ 37. However, the rule that requires the parties
to be strictly confined to the pleadings and the
prayer clauses is not an inflexible rule insofar as
exercise of writ jurisdiction is concerned.
38. Justice is a virtue which transcends all
barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor
technicalities of law can stand in its way. Even
the law bends before justice. The entire concept
of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher
courts is founded on equity and fairness (see: S
Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka).”
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
7. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State submits that from the pleadings on record, it would
transpire that there is no document with regard to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13246 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
7/8
appointment of the petitioner on the post of sweeper and there is
no document on record to suggest that he has been terminated
from his service.
CONSIDERATION
8. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the petitioner is said to
have been appointed on 03.02.2006, however, from perusal of
the entire record as well as the documents, which have been
appended with the writ petition, it would transpire that no letter
of appointment has been annexed with the present writ petition.
Further, one or two documents related to some payment in
favour of the petitioner has been brought on record and one
certificate dated 19.07.2022 issued under the signature of the
Block Development Officer, Bahadurganj is there, which is an
Experience Certificate for working of the petitioner w.e.f.
03.02.2006 to 01.07.2022. Further, no document has been
brought on record to suggest that the petitioner has been
terminated from the post of sweeper and only a statement has
been made in paragraph no. 10 with regard to termination of the
petitioner.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the relief
sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in absence of any

Patna High Court CWJC No.13246 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
8/8
letter of appointment or letter of termination, since when no
letter of termination is there, there is no question of direction for
reinstatement of the petitioner. Further, so far the judgement
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, in the said judgement the petitioners had assailed the
order of termination which was issued by the Principal of the
College on 19.09.2015. In the present case, not a single
document is on record to suggest any appointment or any
termination letter of the petitioner. Therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the judgement relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable in the present case.
10. Considering the above, this Court does not find
any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date