Partly allowed

Shyam Bihari Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Aug 2026CWJC/1380/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the denial of 6th pay revision and enhanced gratuity ceiling to a retired employee who retired before the State Government approved a Board resolution. The Court held that retrospective pay revisions are the rule, not the exception. Arbitrary cut-off dates creating discriminatory classes of pensioners violate Article 14.

What did the court decide?

The impugned State orders restricting benefits were quashed. The matter was remanded to the Chief Secretary to recalculate and grant the petitioner's enhanced retirement benefits including leave salar

Shyam Bihari Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1380 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Shyam Bihari Singh Son of Late Baidnath Singh, Resident of VillageTaranpur, Police Station- Gaurichak, P.O.- Lakhanpur via Punpun, DistrictPatna, PIn Code- 804453.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Secretariat Building, P.S. Sachiwalaya, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Secretariat Building, P.S. Sachiwalaya, Patna.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶9

The Special Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶10

The Additional Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶11

The Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board, through the Chairman, Mahesh Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan East, Patna.

¶12

The Principal Secretary, Department of Industries-cum- Chairman, Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board, Mahesh Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan East, Patna-4.

¶13

The Special Secretary, Department of Industries-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board, Mahesh Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan East, Patna-4.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pratik Kr. Sinha, AC to GA V For the Board : Mr. (Dr.) Anand Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Date : 13-08-2026

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶18

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶19

The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present

¶20

writ petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026

¶22

2/17

¶23

“I) For setting aside/quashing the part of the letter no.4575 Patna dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure:P/8) sent to the respondent Board by the Additional Secretary Industries communicated the decision for giving effect of monetary benefit of 6th revision pay from the date of order is issued as well as for quashing of the resolution taken by the State, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar communicated to the respondent Board and concern officials contained in Memo No. 2832 Patna dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure: P/7) so issued under the signature of respondent Special Secretary Industries department whereby and where under while granting approval on the decision already taken by the respondent Board on 22.12.2018 accepting enhanced ceiling limit for payment of gratuity amount from 3.50 lacs to 10 (Ten) lacs in the Board, it has directed to be effected from 28.12.2021 w.e.f. which 6th revised pay was give effect to and thereby the petitioner who retired prior to the now fixed cutoff date by the State Government has been deprived from getting the retiral benefits such as leave salary etc. on earned/ enhanced limit of gratuity and 6th revised pay in fact applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006/01.04.2007 (Actual payment).

¶24

ii) Also for quashing the order so passed by the respondent Chief Secretary Government of Bihar communicate vide memo no. 5783 Patna dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure: P/13) whereby and where under the respondent refused to allow the prayer for fixing cut of date of 6th revision implementation and that of the effective date fixed for payment of enhance ceiling limit of gratuity in the Board and denied consideration on the representation dated 18.08.2023 filed pursuant to order/ direction of Hon’ble Court dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P/9) passed in C.W.J.C. No.2532 of 2020.

¶25

iii) For further order/ direction to the respondent to recalculate/ reassertion the retiral benefit on the basis of 6th revision admissible pay comes on the date of retirement (dated 31.01.2019 even on notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.2006) so that leave salary, and gratuity etc. be paid at enhance ceiling limit as has been paid to the other staffs of the Board who could retire on or after the cut of date arbitrarily fixed (28.12.2021) So effective date by the respondent state.

¶26

iv) And/or may pass such other -order/ orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶28

petitioner informs this Court that the petitioner had earlier

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 3/17

¶30

approached this Court by filing CWJC No.2532 of 2020, which was disposed vide order dated 04.07.2023 with a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to consider and decide the issue involved with respect to grant of benefit of 6^th pay revision to the petitioner to ensure uniformity with respect to employees of the Board and Corporations of the State within a period of six weeks in light of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary Vrs. State of Manipur & Ors. reported in (2020) 14 SCC 625 . Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, who vide order dated 03.10.2023 rejected the claim of the petitioner, forcing the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

¶31

Per contra , Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) referring to Annexure P/2, the minutes of the resolution of the 391 General Meeting of the Board, dated 22.12.2018, submitted that, Agenda No.2 of the said meeting had resolved by directing to obtain approval from the Government to implement the 6^th pay scale for the employees of the Board, as well as, it was decided that the approval should also be obtained to enhance the

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 4/17

¶33

ceiling limit of payment of gratuity amount from Rs.3,50,000/to Rs.10,000,00/-. Resolution was sent for approval of the State Industries Department and in the meantime, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2019, prior to the final approval of the Government. The 6th Pay Revision was ultimately granted to the employees of the Board with effect from 28.12.2021, which would find reference in the order passed by the Chief Secretary and, as such, the petitioner could not be given benefit of 6^th pay revision.

¶34

Heard the parties.

¶35

Record reveals that the petitioner, was an employee of the Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board, and had retired from service on 31.01.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Board had taken decisions in its Establishment Committee meeting dated 18.12.2018 and General Meeting dated 22.12.2018 for implementation of the 6th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2006 and enhancement of the gratuity ceiling from Rs. 3.50 lakh to Rs.10 lakh, which were subsequently sent to the State Government for approval. As the approval was delayed, the petitioner retired before such approval and his retiral dues were consequently calculated on the unrevised pay scale, with gratuity restricted to Rs. 3.50 lakh,

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 5/17

¶37

although the amount calculated on the basis of his entire service was approximately Rs. 5,14,763/-. The State Government, by letter dated 28.12.2021, approved the 6th Pay Revision prospectively from the said date, thereby excluding the petitioner and other similarly situated employees who had retired earlier. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2532 of 2020 , wherein, by order dated 04.07.2023, he was permitted to submit a representation regarding the effective date of the revision, with a direction to consider the issue in light of law laid down in the case of All Manipur Pensioners' Association (supra). Pursuant thereto, his representation dated 18.08.2023 and reminder dated 30.09.2023 were considered, but his claim was rejected by order dated 04.10.2023.

¶38

Recently, the Apex Court in case of Government of India and Another versus Sri Devraj URS Medical College reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1479 , reiterated that a judgment declaring the law ordinarily operates retrospectively unless the Court expressly directs that it shall have prospective effect. Referring to the settled principle laid down in P.V. George v. State of Kerala, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 557, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “the law declared by a

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 6/17

¶40

Court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically.” It was further held that a prospective application cannot be inferred merely from the circumstances surrounding the judgment; such prospective operation must be specifically indicated. The relevant para are inter alia as under:

¶41

“11. If a decision of the Apex Court does not expressly provide its application to be prospective, then it is settled law that all decisions of this Court are retrospective in application as held in paragraph 29 of P.V. George v. State of Kerala6, which is reproduced herein below:

¶42

“ 29. …….The law declared by a Court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically. …..

¶43

12. That another extract of the final decision in TMA Pai Foundation (supra) case by 11-Judge Bench which indicates towards the intention of the 11Judge Bench decision to be prospective, in paragraph 393 which is reproduced below:

¶44

“ 393. The learned Chief Justice has repeatedly emphasised that capitation fees cannot be charged and that there must be no profiteering. We clarify that the authorities concerned will always be entitled to prevent by enactment or by regulations the charging of exorbitant fees or capitation fees. There are many such enactments already in force. We have not gone into the validity or otherwise of any such enactment. No arguments regarding the validity of any such enactment have been submitted before us. Thus those enactments will not be deemed to have been set aside by this judgment. Of course now by virtue of this judgment the fee structure, fixed under any regulation or enactment, will have to be reworked so as to enable educational institutions not only to break even but also to generate some surplus for future development/expansion and to provide for free seats”

¶45

12.1. A conjoint reading of paragraph 393 of the final decision in TMA

¶46

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 7/17

¶47

Pai Foundation (supra) case by 11-Judge Bench and the clarificatory order dated 01.04.2003 of the Division Bench of this Court makes it abundantly clear that the intention of this Court was to give prospective application to only such statutory provisions which stipulated something contrary to the ratio laid down in the final decision in TMA Pai Foundation (supra) case by 11-Judge Bench.”

¶48

8. Fifth Central Pay Commission made

¶49

recommendation relating to Assured Career Progression (ACP) in such categories of post which has no promotional avenues to qualify for the benefit subject to certain conditions. The Scheme provides for two financial upgradation under ACP only if no regular promotions during the prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed by an employee. The scheme came into effect w.e.f. August 9, 1999.

¶50

Sixth Central Pay Commission recommended that Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) to be administered at 10, 20 and 30 years and the Seventh Central Pay Commission recommended that the MACP will continue as before in the new Pay Matrix. The Apex Court has already held that the MACP shall be effective from 01.09.2008.

¶51

The object and purpose of ACP/MACP scheme has been held by the Apex Court time and again and again reiterated in Union of India and Ors. Vs. C. R. Madhava

¶52

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 8/17

¶53

Murthy and Anr. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183 , that the purpose of the ACP Scheme/MACP Scheme is to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and the Scheme does not involve the actual grant of promotional post to the employees, but to merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher grade.

¶54

Subsequent to the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the above view regarding the purpose of ACP/MACP scheme in the case of Amresh Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (SLP(C) Nos. 8219-8226 of 2019) in the following paragraphs, which are reproduced herein under:

¶55

“16. In Union of India and Anr. Vs. G.Ranjanna and Ors. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721, the three-Judges Bench of this Court held that in situ promotions are made to remove stagnation of grade C and grade D employees by giving them certain monetary benefits.

¶56

x x x x x x

¶57

18. In the aforesaid case, the employees were working as malis (Gardeners) and had claimed promotion in the higher pay scale. The Central Administrative Tribunal seized of the original applications observed that the employees cannot claim the scale of the next higher post by way of in situ promotion. On the matter being taken to the High Court by way of a writ petition, the contention of the employees was accepted and it was observed that the object of in situ promotion on nonfunctional posts, is to ensure that the group C and D employees are not stagnated in the same cadre/pay scale and that they should be provided with certain monetary benefits. Therefore, the rejection of the

¶58

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 9/17

¶59

claim for such nonfunctional in situ promotion on the ground that the employees do not possess the necessary minimum qualification of matriculation as per the rules is not justified and renders the order erroneous in law. The view so taken by the Division Bench of the High Court was affirmed by this Court in the above referred Civil Appeals holding that the High Court has correctly analysed the object of the in situ promotion and fixation of pay scales to Group C and D employees to avoid stagnation.

¶60

19. In view of the aforesaid legal position coupled with the fact that the qualification of graduation prescribed is for the promotion to the post of Accounts Officer rather than for the grant of in situ promotion on the non-functional post or for extending the benefit of ACP which is purely and simply in the nature of grant of monetary benefit without actually effectuating any promotion to any higher post, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in the appeals cannot be sustained. It is accordingly hereby set aside and that the judgment of the writ court dated 28.11.2017 is restored. The appellants are extended the benefit of ACP, as directed by the writ court.”

¶61

Whether the delay in obtaining approval from the

¶62

State Government can operate to defeat the petitioner’s claim when the Board had already resolved to grant the said benefit

¶63

to the petitioner?

¶64

In this regard, I find it apt to refer the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630, wherein, it was has held that where the State Government accepts the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee

¶65

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 10/17

¶66

with retrospective effect, the benefit of the revised pay scale shall be available to the employees from the date specified in the notification, even if they have retired in the intervening period or before the date of issuance of the notification. Therefore, an employee cannot be denied the benefit of the revised pay scale merely because he had retired before the notification was issued. The relevant paragraphs are inter alia are reproduced hereinafter:

¶67

“23. The stand of the State of Karnataka that the pensionary benefits had been conferred on the appellants w.e.f. 1-4-1998 on the premise that the benefit of the revision of scales of pay to its own employees had been conferred from 1-1-1998, in our opinion, is wholly misconceived. Firstly, because the employees of the State of Karnataka and the appellants, in the matter of grant of benefit of revised scales of pay, do not stand on the same footing as revised scales of pay had been made applicable to their cases from a different date. Secondly, the appellants had been given the benefit of the revised scales of pay w.e.f. 1-1-1996. It is now well settled that a notification can be issued by the State accepting the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee with retrospective effect as it was beneficent to the employees. Once such a retrospective effect is given to the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee, the employees concerned despite their reaching the age of superannuation in between the said dates and/or the date of issuance of the notification would be deemed to be getting the said scales of pay as on 1-11996. By reason of such notification, as the appellants had been deprived of a vested right, they could not have been deprived therefrom and that too by reason of executive instructions.

¶68

24. The contention of the State that the matter relating to the grant of pensionary benefits vis-à-vis the revision in the scales of pay stands on a different footing, thus, must be rejected.

¶69

25. Pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of

¶70

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 11/17

¶71

retirement.”

¶72

The Apex Court in case of Maharashtra State

¶73

Financial Corpn. Ex-Employees Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2023) 11 SCC 186 , held that the question as to whether pay revision is to be granted and, if so, the extent and manner thereof, essentially falls within the domain of executive policy-making. At the same time, periodic revision of pay and emoluments of public employees serves an important public interest, as it is intended to ensure that their remuneration keeps pace with the rising cost of living and prevailing inflationary trends, thereby preventing substantial erosion in their real income. Such revisions also seek to foster a renewed sense of commitment and efficiency in public employment and to ensure that public servants are not compelled to supplement their legitimate income through improper means or inducements. The constitutional objective underlying such measures finds reflection in Article 43 of the Constitution, which enjoins the State to endeavour to secure a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life for all workers. In this context, the mechanism of dearness allowance assumes significance as a means of providing protection against the adverse impact of price rise.

¶74

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 12/17

¶75

However, there can be no straitjacket formula governing either the periodicity or the quantum of pay revision, as these matters necessarily depend upon the financial resources of the State, prevailing economic conditions and other relevant policy considerations. Ordinarily, the Union and State Governments undertake such exercises periodically, generally at intervals of about ten years. Nevertheless, once the competent authority takes a policy decision to revise the pay scales and extends such benefit from a specified date, the implementation of such decision must be considered in accordance with its terms and effective date and cannot be defeated merely on the basis of considerations extraneous thereto. Further the Apex Court taking into consideration of All Manipur Pensioner Assn. (supra) has inter alia in paragraph 37 has observed as under :

¶76

“37. In All Manipur Pensioners Assn. v. State of Manipur [All Manipur Pensioners Assn. v. State of Manipur, (2020) 14 SCC 625 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 317] the classification by which the formula of pension, whereby those retiring prior to 1-1-1996 were given a lower rate of revised pension, as compared to those retiring later (who were given a higher rate of revision), was held to be discriminatory : (SCC pp. 628 & 637-39, paras 2, 8 & 9)

¶77

“2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under : that the State of Manipur adopted the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended from time to time. As per Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1972, a case of a government employee retired in accordance with the provisions of the Rules after completing qualifying service of not less than 30 years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at 50% of the average emoluments subject to a maximum of Rs 4500 per month. It appears that considering the increase in the cost of living, the Government of Manipur decided to

¶78

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 13/17

¶79

increase the quantum of pension as well as the pay of the employees. That the Government of Manipur issued an office memorandum dated 21-4-1999 revising the quantum of pension. However, provided that those Manipur Government employees who retired on or after 1-1-1996 shall be entitled to the revised pension at a higher percentage and those who retired before 1-1-1996 shall be entitled at a lower percentage.

¶80

***

¶81

8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion that there is no valid justification to create two classes viz. one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension. I n our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. However, a valid classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cutoff date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied.

¶82

8.1. In the present case, the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the

¶83

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026

¶84

14/17

¶85

pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cut-off date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit.

¶86

8.2. As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute that as such a decision has been taken by the State Government to revise the pension keeping in mind the increase in the cost of living. Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners irrespective of whether they have retired pre-1996 or post-1996. As observed hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class. Therefore, by such a classification/cut-off date the equals are treated as unequals and therefore such a classification which has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension is unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore the said classification was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. At this stage, it is required to be observed that whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not be applicable with respect to one and single class of persons, the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with respect to revision .

¶87

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the controversy/issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] . The decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the case on hand. The Division Bench of the High Court [State of Manipur v. All Manipur Pensioners' Assn., 2016 SCC OnLine Mani 22] has clearly erred in not following the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v.

¶88

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026

¶89

15/17

¶90

Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] and has clearly erred in reversing the judgment and order [All Manipur Pensioners' Assn. v. State of Manipur, 2005 SCC OnLine Gau 118] of the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order [State of Manipur v. All Manipur Pensioners' Assn., 2016 SCC OnLine Mani 22] passed by the Division Bench is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order [All Manipur Pensioners' Assn. v. State of Manipur, 2005 SCC OnLine Gau 118] passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby restored and it is held that all the pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement viz. pre-1996 retirees shall be entitled to revision in pension on a par with those pensioners who retired post-1996. The arrears be paid to the respective pensioners within a period of three months from today.””

¶91

Considering the aforesaid lfacts and

¶92

submissions made on behalf of the Board , I find that the reason assigned in the order contained in Memo No. 5783 dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P/13) by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar appears to be not in consonance with the Board resolution in respect of the Agenda No.2 of meeting which was held on 18.12.2018 when the petitioner was in service. The mere delay in obtaining approval from the State Government cannot operate to defeat the claim of the petitioner, particularly when the Board had already taken a decision in this regard prior to his superannuation. I have already taken into such consideration in my order dated 04.07.2023 passed in CWJC No.2532 of 2020. The Apex Court in case of All

¶93

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 16/17

¶94

Manipur Pensioners Association (Supra) , and then taking into consideration the law laid down in case of D.S. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , reported in (1983) 1 SCC 30 and other judgments, I find that the State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose amongst similarly situated persons by prescribing a cutoff date for extending pensionary benefits. The order passed by the Chief Secretary, contained in Memo No.5783 dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P/13), as well as, the orders contained in Memo No.2832 dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P/7) and Memo No.4575 dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P/8) are set aside and quashed.

¶95

Accordingly, the matter is referred back to the Chief Secretary to take a conscious decision in respect of the petitioner in light of the decisions made hereinabove and law laid down by the Apex Court in cases of All Manipur Pensioners Association (Supra) and D.S. Nakara (Supra) . The Chief Executive Officer of Board must furnish all the service particulars of the petitioner top the Chief Secretary, who while taking a fresh decision, must take into consideration that the Board is now making profit, as per the recent audit, and the required amount be released for payment to the petitioner, in case his case is justified, so that he may not suffer any further,

¶96

Patna High Court CWJC No.1380 of 2024 dt.13-08-2026 17/17

¶97

as he had retired in the year 2019 and still running from pillar to post.

¶98

The order has been passed in the open court in presence of Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, learned State counsel and it is expected that he will forthwith communicate this order even before the order is pronounced to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar for needful.

¶99

It is made clear that, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this order has been passed and shall not be treated as a precedent in any future case.

¶100

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶101

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶102

Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR	AFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	20.08.2026
Transmission Date	NA

Shyam Bihari Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Bihari Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gunjesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramadhar Pandit Vs The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj Department

Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Kumar @ Sarkar Vs The State of Bihar

Kanti Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Sunita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Hari Nath Jha Vs The State Of Bihar