IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13489 of 2025 ======================================================

Md. Shamim Akhtar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari, Adv.

For respondent nos. 5 & 6 : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL @ ANSHUL RAJ ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

2 27-01-2026 This writ petition has been filed by Md. Shamim Akhtar seeking for the following reliefs:-

“1. (i) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction commanding and directing the respondents to remove the anomaly in the fixation of the petitioner's pay with effect from 27-08-2014, and to step it up at par with his Junior, in light of the communications issued by Respondent No. 6 vide Memo No. GEN-1742/2024-2025 (Annexure-P/3) and Memo No. GEN-0084/2025-2026 (Annexure- P/4), and subsequently to revise the petitioner's pension and pay accordingly and release all consequential benefits.

(ii) To direct the Respondents particularly the Respondents no. 4, 5 and 6, to produce the action taken on the application dated 05-08-2024, 27-02-2025 and 20-06-2025 of this Petitioner furnished to the respondent no.- 5 and further to provide the current status of the application.

(iii) Any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. That the relief (s) sought for in Para

1 and its sub paras are based on following substantial question of law :-

(a) Whether the action of the Respondents in fixing a lower pay for the Petitioner, despite his seniority and earlier promotion in the same cadre, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

(b) Whether a senior officer in service can be lawfully paid less than his junior in the same cadre, particularly when both serve under the same rules and notifications?

(c) Whether the Respondents are under a legal and constitutional duty to correct the anomaly in pay fixation upon being informed and after admitting the anomaly through official correspondence?

(d) Whether the failure of the Respondents to take any final decision despite repeated representations and admitted facts amounts to arbitrariness and administrative inaction?”

2. Pointing out from Annexures P/3, P/4 and P/7, learned counsel submits that the authorities have admitted that there is pay anomaly between the petitioner and one Mr. Ishwar Chandra Chaturvedi and in spite of that, no steps have been taken to remove the anomaly and to grant the pay which the petitioner is entitled to receive, even though more than a year has passed in the meantime.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State seeks some time to obtain instruction in that respect.

4. Put up this matter on 10.02.2026.

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

( Ansul @ Anshul Raj, J)

Pravinkumar/

Siddharth Soni U