Disposed¶26

Umesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Jul 2025CWJC/1852/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRDA Madhepura; pre-absorption service reckoning; pension; New Pension Scheme, 2005; Memo No. 796 dated 02.02.2018 Finance Department Bihar; Memo No.6479 dated 27.07.2009; C.W.J.C. No. 5707 of 2015; L.P.A. No. 737 of 2019; Special Leave to Appeal No. 26180 of 2024; sub judice before Supreme Court; writ petition closed with liberty; Rural Development Department Government of Bihar; Clerk-Cum-Typist; Office Peon-Cum-Night Guard; Madhepura.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed, with liberty to the petitioners to agitate their claim before the competent authority if the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court finds favour with any of the identically situated persons. ¶26

Umesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the services rendered by the petitioners in the District Rural Development Agency prior to absorption ought to have been reckoned, rather than their being directed to be covered under the New Pension Scheme, 2005 by Memo No. 796 dated 02.02.2018, on par with identically situated persons extended such benefit under Memo No.6479 dated 27.07.2009. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Liberty reserved to the petitioners: if the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court finds favour with any of the identically situated persons, they may agitate their claim before the competent authority.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with the operation of the learned Division Bench order stayed, this Court found no reason to continue with the writ petition.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PATNA HIGH COURT (Harish Kumar, J) — CWJC No.1852 of 2021, decided 08-07-2025 (Oral Judgment, NAFR). Four District Rural Development Agency, Madhepura employees (three Clerk-Cum-Typists and an Office Peon-Cum-Night Guard) aggrieved by the Finance Department resolution in Memo No. 796 dated 02.02.2018, whereby their pre-absorption DRDA service was not reckoned and they were directed to be covered under the New Pension Scheme, 2005, despite identically situated persons having received the benefit of past DRDA service under Memo No.6479 dated 27.07.2009. Parallel proceedings: the identical claim failed in C.W.J.C. No. 5707 of 2015; in L.P.A. No. 737 of 2019 the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order and remitted the matter to the competent authority to resolve the discrimination among the then-DRDA employees; that Division Bench order is challenged in Special Leave to Appeal No. 26180 of 2024, with its operation stayed. Holding the matter sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court found no reason to continue with the petition and closed it, reserving to the petitioners liberty to agitate their claims before the competent authority should the Supreme Court's order favour any identically situated person.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1852 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Umesh Kumar S/o Mahavir Prasad Mandal, R/o Mohalla- F.C.I. Godam Path, Madhepura, P.S. Madhepura, District- Madhepura PIN- 852113. At present District Rural Development Agency Madhepura, Post- Clerk - CumTypist.

¶4

Rajendra Paswan, S/o Late Prem Paswan, Resident of Mohalla- Jai Prakash Nagar Ward No. 06, P.S. Madhepura, District- Madhepura, At present District Rural Development Agency Madhepura, Post-Clerk-Cum- Typist.

¶5

Nand Kishore Singh, S/o Late Mahendra Narayan Singh, R/o Village and Post- Sahpur, P.S. Gwalpara, District- Madhepura, At present District Rural Development Agency Madhepura, Post- Clerk-Cum- Typist.

¶6

Bhupendra Yadav @ Bhupendra Pd. Yadav, S/o Tanuk Lal Yadav, R/o Mohalla- Ganesh Asthan Madhepura, P.S. and District- Madhepura, At present District Rural Development Agency Madhepura, Post - Office PeonCum-Nigh Guard. ... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Secretary, Rural Development Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Assistant Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶12

The Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶13

The District Magistrate, Madhepura.

¶14

District Rural Development Agency, Madhepura through the Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhepura-cum-The Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development Agency Madhepura.

¶15

9.	The Director, District Rural Development Agency, Madhepura, District- Madhepura.
10.	The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Madhepura, District - Madhepura.
11.	The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi. ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================
	Appearance :
	For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, AC to GP- 7
	For the Union of India : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Sr. CGC Mr. Arvind Kumar, CGC

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.1852 of 2021 dt.08-07-2025 2/3

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

Date : 08-07-2025

¶20

Heard the parties.

¶21

The petitioners are aggrieved with the resolution as contained in Memo No. 796, dated 02.02.2018, issued under the signature of the Secretary (Expenditure), Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby the services rendered by the petitioners in the District Rural Development Agency prior to absorption has not been reckoned and directed to be covered under the New Pension Scheme, 2005.

¶22

Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioners fairly submitted that in the light of the resolution as contained in Memo No.6479, dated 27.07.2009, the identically situated persons have been extended the benefit of their past services rendered in the District Rural Development Agency. However, some of the aggrieved persons approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5707 of 2015, however, the claim of the writ petitioners did not find favour; against which they preferred Letters Patent Appeal, bearing L.P.A. No. 737 of 2019 and the order of the learned Single Judge came to be set aside and the matter is remitted to the competent authority to take decision to the extent of

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.1852 of 2021 dt.08-07-2025 3/3

¶24

discrimination among the employees of the then DRDA and set right the same. The order passed by the learned Division Bench is questioned in Special Leave to Appeal No. 26180 of 2024 and the operation of the order of the learned Division Bench came to be stayed.

¶25

Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, learned Advocate for the State and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned CGC submit that since the operation of the learned Division Bench came to be stayed, hence no relief could be granted to the petitioners.

¶26

Considering the submissions set forth and the fact that the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any reason to continue with the order. The present writ petition stands closed with liberty that if order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court finds favour in any of the identically situated persons, the petitioners shall be at liberty to agitate their claim before the competent authority.

¶27

With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands

¶28

closed.

¶29

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶30

uday/-

¶31

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	10.07.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Umesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paras Nath Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Vidyadhar Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Kumari Rita Bharti @ Rita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjeet Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Rashmi Rekha Vs The State of Bihar

Km Poonam Dahni Vs The State of Bihar