Disposed¶21

Sobha Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Apr 2025MJC/2764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; MJC No.2764 of 2024 in CWJC No.17666 of 2022; Sobha Devi v. State of Bihar and others; Justice Harish Kumar; decided 04-04-2025; contempt proceeding; Nagar Parishad Hajipur; pension and retiral benefits; option within stipulated period; parity with identically situated persons; Lok Adalat undertaking clarified as inadvertent typing mistake; re-examination undertaking; no parity beneficiary accorded retiral benefits; proceeding closed with liberty to revive if parity granted.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief on the pension/parity claim; the contempt proceeding stands closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority should any identically situated person be accorded retiral benefits. ¶21

Sobha Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary/retiral benefits despite not having exercised the option for pension within the stipulated period, pressed on parity with identically situated employees/persons. +1 more

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Till the date of the order, none of the persons with whom the petitioner sought parity had been accorded retiral benefits, and therefore the Court found no reason or occasion to continue with the proceeding.

¶21

Key takeaways

The contempt proceeding stands closed.ratio¶21
The petitioner is left at liberty to approach the concerned authority in case any identically situated person is accorded the retiral benefits.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, oral order dated 04-04-2025 (Harish Kumar, J.) in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2764 of 2024 arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17666 of 2022 (Sobha Devi v. State of Bihar and others). The Nagar Parishad, Hajipur and the parent Urban Development and Housing Department consistently maintained that Nagar Parishad employees are not entitled to pension unless they exercise their option within the stipulated period, and that till date no employee who failed to opt for pension has been accorded pensionary benefits. The earlier undertaking allegedly given at the Lok Adalat covering an identically situated person was clarified as an inadvertent typing mistake, the actual undertaking being only that the grievance would be re-examined. Finding that the petitioner's grievance was based solely on parity, and that none of the persons with whom parity was sought had been accorded retiral benefits, the Court found no reason or occasion to continue with the proceeding and closed the contempt proceeding, reserving the petitioner's liberty to approach the concerned authority if any identically situated person is accorded retiral benefits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2764 of 2024 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17666 of 2022

¶3

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

¶4

Sobha Devi Wife of Upendra Ram Resident of Ambedkar Colony, Pokhra Mohalla, Hajipur, Police Station- Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through Mr. Amir Subhani, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

Mr. Arunish Chawla, the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

Mr. S. Siddharth, the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Hajipur, Dist.- Vaishali.

¶11

Smt. Sangeeta Kumari, the Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Hajipur, DistrictVaishali.

¶12

Mr. Yashpal Meena, the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶13

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vasant Vikas, Adv. For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel 6 For the Nagar Parishad : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶16

3 04-04-2025 Heard the parties.

¶17

There is consistent response of the Nagar Parishad,

¶18

Hajipur as well as the parent Department, i.e., the Urban Development and Housing Department that the employees of the Nagar Parishad, Hajipur are not entitled to get the pension, unless they exercise their option within the stipulated period. The claim of the petitioner that one of the identically situated person whose case was referred to the Lok Adalat and the opposite party-Nagar Parishad, Hajipur has

¶19

Patna High Court MJC No.2764 of 2024(3) dt.04-04-2025 2/2

¶20

tendered undertaking that all the grievances of the petitioner shall be redressed has also been clarified that it was an inadvertent typing mistake although the undertaking was given that the grievance of the petitioner shall be re-examined. Moreover, it is the specific stand of the Nagar Parishad that till date none of the employees have been accorded the pensionary benefits who have failed to opt for pension.

¶21

Considering the stand in the show cause affidavit and having heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the opposite parties, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner is based on parity; however, in view of the aforesaid facts that till date none of the person with whom the petitioner is seeking parity has been accorded the retiral benefits, this Court does not find any reason or occasion to continue with the present proceeding. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding stands closed.

¶22

However, the petitioner shall always be at liberty to approach the concerned authority in case any of the identically situated person is accorded the retiral benefits.

¶23

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶24

Anjani/- U

Sobha Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobha Devi 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

Subhash Chandra @ Pintu Vs The State of Bihar

Saroj Mani Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Mundrika Kumari @ Mundrika Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Kamal Kumar Agrawal Vs The State of Bihar

Samudri Devi Vs The State of Bihar