The Patna High Court recently dismissed the appeal of a man who claimed to have been appointed as a peon in Bihar’s education department in 1998 and sought salary arrears, after an inquiry found that his appointment letter was “forged” and that he had never actually joined government service or received any salary.
Emphasising that fraud and justice never “dwell together”, Chief Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Soni Shrivastava clarified that the man is not entitled to the salary as his initial appointment was “tainted”.
“There is yet another dimension of the present case which cannot be overlooked: that the appellant (man) has used forged documents and it is well-settled that fraud and justice never dwell together, as has been very well explained in the judgment of the apex court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others,” the July 8 order read.
The high court also pointed out that the right to salary, pension and service benefits is a “statutory” right flowing from a “valid legal appointment” while dismissing the appeal filed by one Kamlesh Kumar, who challenged an April 2025 order dismissing his plea seeking payment of salary arrears and other consequential reliefs.
Fight for salary, 20 years of litigation
The man claimed that he was appointed in June 1998 to the post of peon by the district education officer of Bhojpur-cum Buxar
It was added that despite his appointment and alleged joining, when no salary was paid to him, he filed a plea in 2006, essentially for payment of salary, which was disposed of by this court in January 2008, denying him the said relief.
Against the said order, the man preferred another appeal, which was also disposed of by an order dated May 20, 2008, without interfering with the order of the previous single judge’s order, with some additional clarifications.
Nearly 15 years later, Kumar initiated a second round of litigation by filing another petition in 2023, once again seeking payment of salary. That petition was dismissed by a single judge on April 21, 2025, leading to the present appeal. The man was represented by advocate Akshansh Ankit in the matter.
‘Appointment letter -a forged document’
The high court noted that pursuant to the earlier order of the court, the principal secretary of the human resource development department of the state government himself conducted an inquiry where the man had admittedly participated, and the report was submitted on July 14, 2008.
The inquiry recorded a categorical finding that Kumar’s appointment letter itself was a “manufactured/forged document” and that he had never actually succeeded in joining government service or drawing any salary.
The court also noted that although the man participated in the said inquiry, he never challenged the following inquiry report of July 14, 2008.
“Thus, the contention of the appellant that he was not served with the inquiry report has no legs to stand as there cannot be any denial of him having knowledge about the same and he slept over the matter and did not take any steps in this regard,” the court added.
Inquiry report never challenged
Advocating counsel Alok Ranjan, representing the state, submitted that the case of the man stands rightly decided by the earlier orders of this court and since the inquiry report was never put to challenge by him.
He submitted that the single judge had rightly refused relief in 2025 because the inquiry had conclusively found the appointment letter to be fake and forged, and those findings had attained finality.( _IE_ )
