Shaukat Ali Khan vs The State of Bihar — CWJC/21006/2021
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 06th May 2026.
CNR: BRHC010863962021
e-Filing Number
15-12-2021
Filing Number
CWJC/20558/2021
Filing Date
15-Dec-2021
Registration No
CWJC/21006/2021
Registration Date
22-Dec-2021
Judge
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
Coram
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CIVIL WRIT ( 15 )
Sub-Category
ALLOW./LTC , POLICE SER. ( 3504 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shaukat Ali Khan
Adv. Abhinav Srivastava,MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL,MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL, ,Dr. Raushan,Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER,MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
2.Guriya Khatun,
-
3.Bandana Kumari
-
4.Khusboo Kumari
-
5.Priti Kumari,
-
6.Priyanka Kumari
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
7.Mohammad Rafi,
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
8.Arbind Kumar,
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
9.Guddu Kumar Ram
-
10.Saurav Suman,
-
11.Abhishek Kumar,
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
12.Deepnarayan Mahato,
-
13.Ajeet Kumar,
-
14.Sanjay Yadav,
-
15.Gopal Kumar,
-
16.Satyendra Orwan,
-
17.Bikash Chandra Rai,
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
18.Pankaj Kumar,
-
19.Rupesh Thapa,
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
20.Ram Surat Singh
-
21.Akash Kumar
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
22.Parshuram Dubey,
-
23.Akhilesh Prasad,
-
24.Sachindra Kumar Mishra,
-
25.Vijesh Prasad Gupta,
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
26.Rajesh Kumar Singh,
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
27.Niranjan Kumar,
-
28.Inteshar Khan,
Adv. Md. Helal Ahmad,FAKHRA TANAZ AKHTER MOHAMMAD TAHMEED HELAL
-
29.Kamlesh Kumar Sharma,
-
30.Uttam Kumar,
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Bihar
-
2.Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department,
-
3.Director General of Police,
-
4.Additional Director General of Police, Anti-Terrorist Squad,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
22-Jun-2026
For Admission
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
06-May-2026
Mr. Justice Nani TagiaView PDF
-
06-May-2026
Mr. Justice Nani TagiaView PDF
Case Summary: CWJC/21006/2021 The Patna High Court ruled that 30 Bihar Police Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) personnel are statutorily entitled to 30% of their basic pay as risk allowance under Rule 20(1) and Appendix I(iii) of the Bihar Anti Terrorist Squad Rules, 2024. The court quashed the Finance Department's September 2025 order proposing a consolidated Rs. 25,000 maximum payment, holding that an executive order cannot override statutory prescription. The court directed the state to verify each petitioner's ATS service period and pay the mandated 30% allowance within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
For Admission
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
05-May-2026
For Admission
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
04-May-2026
For Admission
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
01-May-2026
For Admission
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
30-Apr-2026
For Orders (On Office Notes)
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
01-May-2024
For Order III
Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
-
24-Apr-2024
For Admission - Fresh Cases
Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
-
10-Apr-2024
For Admission - Fresh Cases
Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
-
23-Dec-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Dec-2021
Case filed
Registration No. CWJC/21006/2021
Case Summary: CWJC/21006/2021 The Patna High Court ruled that 30 Bihar Police Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) personnel are statutorily entitled to 30% of their basic pay as risk allowance under Rule 20(1) and Appendix I(iii) of the Bihar Anti Terrorist Squad Rules, 2024. The court quashed the Finance Department's September 2025 order proposing a consolidated Rs. 25,000 maximum payment, holding that an executive order cannot override statutory prescription. The court directed the state to verify each petitioner's ATS service period and pay the mandated 30% allowance within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts