Sheo Murat Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.664 of 2025

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

Sheo Murat Prasad S/o Shri Chandu Ram, Vill- Gelwara, Post- Jafarpur, Tehsil- Sadar, P.S.- Sidhari, Distt.- Azamgarh, State of Uttar Pradesh, Pin276001.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, 800001.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, General Administration Department, Patna-800001.

¶8

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Navnit Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-18 ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶10

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 24-02-2026

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by Mr. Sheo Murat Prasad, seeking the following relief(s):-

¶12

"(i) For quashing the order dated 23.08.2024 bearing letter 07/ पेशन -01-04/2024- सा . प्र -13527 sent to the petitioner on 28-08-2024, contained in Annexure-P/9 to this writ application under the seal and signature of Sunil Kumar Tiwari, under Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶13

(ii) For, directing the respondents to restrain them from illegal and unauthorized withholding of pension of the petitioner in old pension scheme without any proper reason and

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026 2/8

¶15

fault of the petitioner.

¶16

(iii) For, directing the respondents that they must accept the petition of the petitioner for converting his pension from New Pension Scheme to old Pension Scheme and also to pay the entire amount of retiral benefits including gratuity within a short time limit.

¶17

(iv) For directing the respondents to stop harassing the petitioner by their arbitrary, illegal and prejudiced acts.

¶18

(v) And/or to pass any other order/orders which may deem fit in the light of facts mentioned hereinafter."

¶19

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared in the competitive examination for the 24th Bihar Judicial Service pursuant to vacancies advertised/notified in the year 1990 by the Bihar Public Service Commission vide notification dated 11.10.1990. The petitioner was declared successful and subsequently participated in the interview conducted on 06.05.1994. His name was included in the merit list of successful candidates prepared after the interview.

¶20

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he received a letter dated 16.08.2005 under the seal and signature of the then Under Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna, directing

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026 3/8

¶22

him to appear on 06.09.2005 along with all educational and academic certificates in connection with his appointment to the post of Munsif on the basis of the aforesaid 24th Bihar Judicial Service Examination and he appeared on 06.09.2005, where his certificates were duly checked, verified, and found to be correct and genuine. Thereafter, he received another letter dated 16.08.2005 appointing him as Munsif, subject to medical fitness. The petitioner underwent the required medical examination, and the medical report was forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Patna.

¶23

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that his appointment was formally notified by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, vide notification dated 07.03.2006. In continuation thereof, the High Court issued notification dated 20.05.2006, posting him as Temporary Munsif at Sasaram. The petitioner successfully completed his one-year probation period and thereafter, he continued to serve in various districts/judgeships in the State of Bihar. Ultimately, after rendering more than ten years of service, he was superannuated from the post of Sub-Judge, Saharsa on 31.08.2016.

¶24

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026 4/8

¶26

judicial officers belonging to the 24th Batch were appointed in different phases, through different notifications, between the years 1995 and 2006. However, all such appointments were made from the same merit list and against the same vacancies that had been advertised in the year 1990.

¶27

6. According to the petitioner, the delay in his appointment and joining was neither deliberate nor attributable to him. Such delay occurred on account of pendency of Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter due to certain administrative reasons, which were wholly beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶28

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Government of India discontinued the Old Pension Scheme for employees appointed on or after 01.01.2004 and introduced the New Pension Scheme with effect from 01.01.2004. The Government of Bihar adopted the said policy. Since the petitioner joined service after 01.01.2004, i.e., after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme, he was inducted under the New Pension Scheme and, consequently, he retired under the said scheme.

¶29

8. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on the basis of the same merit list, certain officers who joined service

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026 5/8

¶31

prior to 01.01.2004 were granted the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. However, other similarly situated officers, including the petitioner, who could not join service before 01.01.2004 and joined belatedly for reasons beyond their control, were brought under the New Pension Scheme by the State Government and consequently inducted thereunder.

¶32

9. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Government of Bihar took a decision to remove ambiguities and discrepancies in respect of employees who were selected against vacancies that existed prior to 01.01.2004 and whose selection process had been completed before the cut-off date, but whose joining was delayed due to administrative reasons or pendency of cases before judicial forums, resulting in their joining service only after 01.01.2004.

¶33

10. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he fulfilled all the parameters and conditions prescribed under the relevant notifications for being covered under the Old Pension Scheme. However, his case was not considered appropriately, and his representation seeking inclusion under the Old Pension Scheme was rejected without proper justification. The grounds urged by the petitioner is that the process of his selection had been completed prior to 01.01.2004 and his joining was delayed

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026 6/8

¶35

due to administrative hurdles and pendency of cases before judicial forums, which were beyond his control and therefore, he is entitled to relief sought for.

¶36

11. The respondent–State has filed a counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed as Munsif in the year 2006 against a non-joining vacancy in compliance with the order of this Court. It is further stated that the petitioner was not appointed on the basis of the first merit list but was appointed in the year 2006 against a vacancy that arose due to non-joining, and at that point of time, the new pension scheme was in force.

¶37

12. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that an identical issue was raised in the case of Baij Nath Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 11323 of 2021, and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 21.02.2023.

¶38

13. Learned counsel for the respondents emphatically contended, placing reliance upon the said decision (annexed as Annexure–R/A to the counter affidavit), that since in an identical matter, this Court has declined to grant relief, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case.

¶39

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026 7/8

¶41

argued that the case of the petitioner is not completely identical to C.W.J.C. No. 11323 of 2021. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner has not withdrawn any amount deposited under the New Pension Scheme and has not obtained any retiral benefits thereunder.

¶42

15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed after 01.09.2005, which is admittedly after the New Pension Scheme was introduced. The petitioner has already been superannuated on 31.08.2016 and has been governed by the New Pension Scheme since his appointment. Upon perusal of the order relied upon by learned counsel for the State, we are of the view that the petitioner having joined his service after the New Pension Scheme came into force, the issue stands covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 11323 of 2021. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is distinguishable from C.W.J.C. No. 11323 of 2021 cannot be accepted.

¶43

16. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶44

17. The writ petition is devoid of merit, particularly

¶45

Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026 8/8

¶46

in view of the fact that in the earlier case also the concerned petitioner had been appointed pursuant to the 24th Judicial Service Examination and his appointment was notified after 01.09.2005, by which time the New Pension Scheme had already came into force. The issue, therefore, stands squarely covered by the said decision.

¶47

18. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

¶48

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

¶49

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶50

Neha/-

¶51

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	27.02.2026
Transmission Date

Sheo Murat Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Murat Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasumati Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Vivek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Vs The Patliputra University

Anupam Kumar Suman Vs The Union of India

Jagdish Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Baij Nath Ram Vs The State of Bihar