Case Background
The petitioner worked in the Animal and Fishery Resources Department of the Government of Bihar. At the end of his career, he was holding the post of Special Deputy Director, Vrihat Pashuvikash Pariyojna, Patna.
He retired on 31.12.2017 on reaching the age of superannuation. After retirement, a dispute arose regarding his retiral dues, especially his pension.
During his service, a departmental proceeding had been started against him. This proceeding did not end before his retirement. Instead, it was continued even after his retirement under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
The departmental proceeding finally concluded with an order passed on 24.01.2019 by the respondent authorities. By this order, 50% of the petitioner’s pension was ordered to be permanently withheld.
According to the petitioner, despite this order, he did not receive pension for certain periods. He therefore approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14945 of 2021 seeking directions for payment of all admissible retiral dues, including arrears of pension from his retirement date.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia, heard the matter on 09.05.2024. The Court heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18, for the respondents.
The petitioner’s side stated that a departmental proceeding had been initiated during his service and was continued after retirement under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The proceeding ended with the order dated 24.01.2019, by which 50% of his pension was permanently cut.
On the basis of that order, the petitioner admitted that only half of his pension was payable. However, his complaint was that this 50% pension was actually paid to him only from 25.10.2021 onwards.
His counsel informed the Court that the order dated 24.01.2019 had itself been challenged in another case before the Patna High Court, being C.W.J.C. No.12175 of 2019. That is a separate proceeding where the validity of the punishment order is under question.
In the present case, the petitioner limited his grievance. He stated that all other retiral dues had been paid by the authorities. Only pension for the period from 01.01.2018 to 23.01.2019 and from 24.01.2019 to 24.10.2021 had not been paid at all.
Therefore, he asked the Court to direct the respondents to release the pension for these specific periods, at least to the extent that it was already sanctioned under the departmental order.
On the other side, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (the State authorities) filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit. In paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit, they stated that payment of pension was in process. On that basis, they requested that the writ petition be dismissed as infructuous.
However, in paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit, they also stated that 50% of the petitioner’s pension had actually been sanctioned with effect from 25.10.2021. This meant that, in reality, pension payments started only from that later date.
The Court carefully examined the pleadings. It noted that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2017 from the post of Special Deputy Director, Vrihat Pashuvikash Pariyojna, Patna. It also noted that the departmental proceeding against him was continued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and concluded with the order dated 24.01.2019, by which 50% of his pension was permanently withheld.
From the submissions of both sides and the documents on record, the Court found that after conclusion of the departmental proceeding on 24.01.2019, the petitioner was entitled to 50% pension in terms of that order. Yet, he had been paid 50% pension only from 25.10.2021.
The Court further recorded that all other retiral dues had already been paid to the petitioner. Only the pension for the periods from 01.01.2018 to 23.01.2019 and from 24.01.2019 to 24.10.2021 remained unpaid.
The Court observed that the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not specifically answer why pension for these periods had not been paid. Apart from stating that pension had been sanctioned from 25.10.2021, there was no explanation for the non-payment of pension prior to that date.
In particular, the Court pointed out two distinct time segments. First, from 01.01.2018 to 23.01.2019, when the departmental proceeding was still pending. Second, from 24.01.2019 to 24.10.2021, when the proceeding had concluded and the punishment of permanent withholding of 50% pension was already in place.
For the first period, 01.01.2018 to 23.01.2019, the Court noted that the departmental proceeding was pending. Even so, the respondents did not show any legal basis for completely stopping pension for that entire period.
For the second period, 24.01.2019 to 24.10.2021, the Court noted that, under the order dated 24.01.2019, the petitioner was at least entitled to receive 50% of his pension. Despite this, the authorities had not paid even this reduced amount until 25.10.2021.
Thus, the Court concluded that the State authorities had failed to release pension for both these periods, though there was no justification shown in the pleadings. It also found that the plea that the writ petition had become infructuous was not correct, because the disputed arrears still remained unpaid.
Taking this view, the Court did not go into the validity of the 50% pension cut itself, because that issue was already sub judice in C.W.J.C. No.12175 of 2019. Instead, it focused only on ensuring that the petitioner was paid what even the State accepted as his entitlement under the existing order.
Ultimately, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear direction. It ordered the respondents to pay the pension of the petitioner for the periods from 01.01.2018 to 23.01.2019 and from 24.01.2019 to 24.10.2021, as per his entitlement under the law.
This means that the government must now calculate and release the pension for those periods in line with the current order of permanent 50% withholding, unless that punishment order is later changed in the separate pending writ petition.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for retired government employees in Bihar who face delays in pension payment after departmental proceedings.
The Patna High Court made it clear that even if a punishment like partial withholding of pension is imposed, the government cannot indefinitely delay paying the remaining amount that is legally due.
The Court treated the non-payment of pension for specific past periods as a live issue, rejecting the State’s argument that the case had become infructuous just because part of the pension had started being paid later.
For retirees, the decision shows that they can approach the Court when pension arrears are not paid, even if their main punishment order is separately under challenge.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the writ petition was infructuous because 50% pension had been sanctioned from 25.10.2021 and other retiral dues were paid.
Answer: No. The Court held that the petition survived because pension for the periods 01.01.2018 to 23.01.2019 and 24.01.2019 to 24.10.2021 had still not been paid. - Issue: Whether the respondents were required to pay pension for the periods before and after the punishment order of 24.01.2019, subject to the 50% cut.
Answer: Yes. The Court directed the respondents to pay pension for those periods as per the petitioner’s entitlement under the law.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely on any other cited cases.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14945 of 2021
Case Title: Dr. Dharmendra Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
Citation: 2024(2) PLJR 759
Advocates: For the petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, Advocate; Mr. Bhaskar Sandilya, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18.
Nature of the case: Writ petition seeking direction for payment of retiral dues and pension arrears.
Link to the judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTQ5NDUjMjAyMSMxI04=-ta–am1–9Ctb0–am1–R4=
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.
