Case Background
The petitioner is the widow of a government employee who died in service. After her husband’s death, she was appointed on compassionate grounds in the Health Department.
By Memo No. 142 dated 16.01.2011, issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah, she was appointed to a Class-IV post. The pay scale was Rs. 4440-7440 with grade pay of Rs. 1300.
This appointment was made on the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting dated 07.12.2010. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah recommended her case vide Memo No. 743 dated 09.12.2010. She joined at the Additional Primary Health Centre, Leprosy Eradication Unit, Bettiah.
The petitioner states that at the time of appointment she had already passed the Intermediate examination. According to her, despite this qualification, she was appointed only to a Class-IV post, while in the same district in 2011 other compassionate appointees with Intermediate qualification were given Class-III posts.
Later, the State Government introduced a policy for promotion of Group “घ” (Class-IV) employees possessing matriculation or higher qualification to clerical posts against a 15% quota. On the basis of this policy, the petitioner’s case was recommended and she was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC).
However, in 2022 the Health Department questioned her promotion and reverted her back to a Class-IV post, which led her to file this writ petition under the civil writ jurisdiction of the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner’s main grievance was against Memo No. 893 dated 07.10.2022 issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. By this memo she was demoted from the post of LDC (Class-III) to a Class-IV post under the Civil Surgeon, Bettiah.
She also challenged the consequential order, Memo No. 2031 dated 03.11.2022, issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. By this memo she was reverted from the clerk post to a Class-IV post of office attendant and posted at Additional Primary Health Centre, Senuwaria (Majhaulia).
The petitioner sought quashing of both orders and a direction to allow her to continue as LDC in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 1900 under the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
State policy on promotion from Class-IV to Class-III
The Court noted the petitioner’s reliance on a State Government notification dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure-3) issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. This notification was addressed to State Programme Officers (Leprosy, Malaria, Filaria, Tuberculosis, Blindness), Superintendents/Principals of medical colleges/hospitals and all Civil Surgeons in Bihar.
As per this notification, based on a General Administration Department letter dated 23.03.2011, a provision was made for promotion to the clerical cadre from Group “घ” employees having matriculation qualification, on the basis of seniority and roster, against a 15% quota.
Subsequently, Memo No. 209 dated 25.05.2015 was issued by the District Programme Officer (Leprosy), State Leprosy Eradication Office, Bihar, Patna. This memo directed all District/In-charge District Leprosy Eradication Officers to collect original matriculation certificates of Class-IV employees working under the National Leprosy Programme for their promotion to the post of Clerk.
In compliance, the Additional Chief Medical Officer-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Leprosy Control Unit, West Champaran, Bettiah, sent Letter No. 15 dated 12.06.2015 to the State Programme Officer (Leprosy), Bihar, Patna. In this letter, the case of the petitioner was recommended for promotion to a Class-III post, enclosing all relevant documents including her educational qualifications.
Promotion and departmental examination
On the basis of this recommendation, Memo No. 266 dated 27.07.2016 was issued by the Additional Director, Health Services-cum-State Programme Officer (Leprosy), Bihar, Patna. By this memo, the petitioner was promoted to the post of LDC in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 1900 and posted in the office of the State Leprosy Eradication Office, Bettiah.
To give effect to this promotion, Memo No. 309 dated 14.02.2017 was issued by the competent authority, notifying the promotion and posting. The petitioner later appeared in a departmental examination held on 26.12.2017 and 27.12.2017 and was declared successful. Her name appeared at serial no. 7 in the result list.
Show cause notices and demotion
Despite this history, years later the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna issued Letter No. सं०सं०-11/एल० (सथा०)-05/2018-192 (11) dated 10.03.2022 to the petitioner. This show cause notice asked why her promotion should not be cancelled.
The ground mentioned was that her promotion allegedly violated Department Notification No. 1060(4) dated 01.12.2014, according to which the appointing authority for clerical cadre in districts is the Civil Surgeon and in medical colleges/hospitals is the Superintendent. The notice said the State Programme Officer (Leprosy), Bihar, Patna was not competent to grant promotion.
A reminder Letter No. सं०सं०-11/एल० (सथा०)-05/2018-257(11) dated 30.03.2022 was issued asking the petitioner to submit her explanation within one week.
The petitioner replied with detailed representations dated 26.03.2022 and 12.04.2022, enclosing documents and explaining that her promotion was under the 15% promotion policy, not on compassionate grounds and not by an incompetent authority.
However, by Memo No. 893(11) dated 07.10.2022 issued by the Director-in-Chief (Disease Control, Public Health, Paramedicals) Health Services, Bihar, Patna, she was reverted to the Class-IV post. Based on this, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah issued Memo No. 2031 dated 03.11.2022, implementing the reversion and posting her as Class-IV employee at Additional Primary Health Centre, Senuwaria, Majhaulia.
Petitioner’s arguments before the Court
The petitioner argued that:
First, her promotion was not a fresh compassionate benefit. She had already been validly appointed on compassionate grounds as Class-IV employee. Later promotion to Class-III was under the State’s 15% promotion policy for qualified Class-IV employees.
Second, she possessed Intermediate qualification since 2009 and thus fully met the educational requirement for promotion under the policy. Documents including admit card, mark-sheet and provisional certificate issued by Bihar School Examination Board were placed before the Court.
Third, all relevant documents had been forwarded to the competent authority when her promotion was recommended. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah had issued the promotion order based on the State policy. Therefore, the allegation in the counter affidavit that promotion was on compassionate grounds was incorrect.
Fourth, the impugned demotion order was non-speaking. It simply stated that after considering her show cause, the authority decided to cancel the promotion without giving reasons. The State’s attempt to supply reasons later in the counter affidavit was impermissible.
For this proposition, she relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, (1978) 1 SCC 405, where it was held that an order must stand or fall on the reasons mentioned in it and cannot be validated by new reasons through affidavits.
State’s stand
The State contended that the Additional Director, Health Services-cum-State Programme Officer (Leprosy) had no jurisdiction to grant promotion from Class-IV to Class-III. Under Letter No. 1060(4) dated 11.12.2014, the appointing authority for Class-III posts was the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer of the district or the Superintendent of the medical hospital.
The State further relied on General Administration Department Notification No. 13293 dated 05.10.1991, Clause 9(Ka), to say that a person appointed on compassionate grounds cannot later be given benefit by way of promotion or cadre transfer. It explained that Rules for clerks provide that 85% of LDC posts are filled by direct recruitment on the Commission’s recommendation and 15% by promotion of Group-D employees who possess Intermediate/10+2 qualification and are selected based on seniority. The promotional posts are to be filled on recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee.
Court’s assessment of facts and law
The Court first confirmed that the petitioner’s initial compassionate appointment as Class-IV employee was made following due procedure through the District Compassionate Appointment Committee and District Magistrate.
The key question was whether her later promotion to Class-III clerk was in accordance with State policy and by the competent authority, and whether the demotion order was legally sustainable.
During hearing, the Court specifically asked the petitioner’s counsel why no educational qualification document was on record, given the State’s claim that she had only “Madhyama” qualification. In response, original documents (admit card, mark-sheet and provisional certificate) showing she passed Intermediate in 2009 were produced before the Court.
On perusing these documents and Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the Court found that these educational certificates had been sent to the competent authority when her promotion was recommended to a Class-III post.
The Court recorded that the promotion order was issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah, based on the State Government’s policy decision. Thus, the promotion was not on compassionate grounds but under the 15% quota reserved for Class-IV employees with requisite qualification, as per notifications dated 02.12.2013 and 25.05.2015.
The Court observed that while passing the impugned memo No. 893(11) dated 07.10.2022, the Director-in-Chief, Health Services appeared either unaware of this policy decision or deliberately relied only on Clause 2(VI) of Letter No. 1060 dated 01.12.2014, which related to appointment, not promotion.
The Court further noted that the Director-in-Chief, for reasons best known to him, had not even considered the show cause/representation filed by the petitioner and passed the demotion order on erroneous grounds.
The respondents, in their counter affidavit, had relied on Clause-15 of Notification No. 1060(4) dated 01.12.2014, which prescribes the procedure for promotion on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. However, the Court pointed out that neither in the counter affidavit nor in the writ petition was it clarified whether that procedure had actually been followed or not. The only assertion was about competency of the authority.
Final directions of the Court
On this analysis, the Court held that the impugned demotion orders could not stand.
It set aside Memo No. 893(11) dated 07.10.2022 issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna, and Memo No. 2031 dated 03.11.2022 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
The Court granted liberty to the respondent authorities to verify whether, at the time of giving promotion to the petitioner, the procedure mentioned in Clause-15 of Letter No. 1060(4) dated 01.12.2014 had been followed.
If, on such verification, they find that the procedure was followed, then no further orders are required. However, if they find that the procedure was not followed, they may proceed afresh strictly following due legal procedure and after giving due notice to the petitioner.
The Court added an important protection: since the petitioner had already discharged her duties on the promoted post up to 03.11.2022, no recovery or other adverse order shall be passed against her for that period.
With these directions and clarifications, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for Class-IV government employees, especially those appointed on compassionate grounds in Bihar, who later receive promotion under departmental policies.
The Patna High Court clarified that when a promotion is granted on the basis of a general policy decision, it cannot be casually treated as an illegal compassionate benefit. Authorities must look at the actual source of power and policy behind the promotion.
The judgment also stresses that senior officers cannot ignore written policies and must consider the employee’s reply and documents before cancelling promotions. Orders that affect an employee’s rank and pay must contain clear reasons. Later justifications in court filings cannot cure a bad order.
Further, even if there is doubt about whether procedure for promotion was fully followed, the employee cannot be punished financially for work already done. No recovery can be made for the period during which the employee actually worked on the promoted post.
For low-income employees, especially widows of deceased employees, this offers significant protection against arbitrary demotion and recovery orders.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the petitioner’s promotion from Class-IV to Class-III clerk could be cancelled on the ground that it was granted by an incompetent authority and allegedly in violation of Notification No. 1060(4) dated 01.12.2014.
Answer: The Court held that the demotion orders were unsustainable and set them aside, noting that the promotion had been granted under the State’s 15% promotion policy for qualified Class-IV employees and not as a compassionate benefit. -
Issue: What steps could the State take, if any, regarding the petitioner’s promotion after quashing the demotion orders.
Answer: The Court allowed the authorities to verify whether the procedure in Clause-15 of Letter No. 1060(4) dated 01.12.2014 had been followed. If it was followed, no further action is needed; if not, they may proceed afresh only after following due procedure and giving notice to the petitioner, without recovery for the period up to 03.11.2022.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, (1978) 1 SCC 405.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16617 of 2022
Case Title: Anupam Dvivedi vs The State of Bihar & Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar
Date of Judgment: 03.02.2026
Citation: 2026(2) PLJR 312
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Akshansh Shanker Singh, Advocate; Mr. Barun Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Advocate for State/Respondents: Mrs. Vijaya Laxmi Srivastava, AC to SC-23
Nature of Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging orders of reversion/demotion from Class-III (LDC) to Class-IV post in the Health Department.
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the original judgment on the Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
