Availability of statutory grievance redressal mechanism bars direct exercise of writ jurisdiction in service-related disputes

The petitioners, Rajesh Kumar Singh and Vijay Rai, are police personnel serving in the Bihar Special Armed Police (BSAP). They filed a writ petition seeking an order to compel the respondent authorities to grant them officiating promotions to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police (Arms) effective from 05.10.2025.

The petitioners contended that they were entitled to this promotion from the date their juniors were allegedly granted the same, along with all consequential benefits.

During the hearing, the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ, arguing that an alternative administrative remedy exists.

1. Whether the petitioners are required to exhaust the alternative remedy provided under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, before seeking relief via writ jurisdiction.

Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, specifically Rule 2(c), which defines a "complaint" to include all matters relating to service benefits such as promotion (point 4), salary increments, and seniority.

Rule 3, which prescribes the mandatory procedure for filing such complaints through an online mode for serving or retired employees.

The legal principle upheld is that when a specialized statutory grievance redressal mechanism exists for service matters, the High Court may direct the litigants to exhaust said remedy before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court examined the statutory definition of "complaint" under Rule 2(c) and determined that the petitioners' claim for officiating promotion and consequential benefits falls squarely within the ambit of the 2019 Rules.

The Court noted that the Rules exclude matters only if they are already under a Court’s consideration or relate to disciplinary actions and transfers; however, since the primary grievance here is promotion-related, the administrative forum is the appropriate first instance for relief.

By invoking the procedure laid down in Rule 3, the Court reasoned that the petitioners have an efficacious and streamlined online remedy to address their grievances regarding seniority and promotion.

Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the merits of the promotion claim at this stage.

The Court further commanded the concerned authority to resolve the matter within the specific timeframe stipulated in the Rules. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.