Disposed¶23

Banshidhar Upadhyay v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC12 May 2026CWJC/7247/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

annual increment; last year of service; retirement on 30th June 2018; increment accruing 1st July; 6th Pay revision; 7th Pay revision; pension started without increment; pension revision; pensionary benefits; writ of mandamus; no prior representation filed; direction to file representation; reasoned and speaking order; Engineer in Chief Public Health Engineering Department Bihar; Accountant General Bihar; Shiojee Rai and Others Vs. State of Bihar; CWJC No. 12575/2019; disposed of with directions; Patna High Court; Dr. Anshuman

What did the court decide?

Liberty/direction to the petitioner to file a representation with a copy of the order within 30 days before respondent No. 5 (Engineer in Chief, PHED, Bihar); respondent No. 5 to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within 90 days thereafter. ¶23

Banshidhar Upadhyay Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who retired on 30th June, 2018 after working the complete year in his year of retirement, is entitled to the annual increment accruing on 1st July (made admissible per the 6th Pay revision and 7th Pay revision on 1st of July), with consequential benefits including revision of pension and pensionary benefits. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation along with a copy of the order within 30 days before respondent No. 5, the Engineer in Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, who shall thereupon pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within 90 days; entitlement on merits was not adjudicated by this Court.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, CWJC No. 7247 of 2026 (Dr. Anshuman, J.; decision date 12-05-2026). Banshidhar Upadhyay, who retired on 30th June, 2018, sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to grant the annual increment for his last year of service - admissible per the 6th Pay revision and 7th Pay revision on 1st of July - on the ground that he had worked the complete year preceding retirement, to treat his date of retirement as 1st July of his retirement year, and to grant consequential benefits including pensionary benefits; pension had been started without the increment or its revision. Counsel relied on Shiojee Rai and Others Vs. State of Bihar (decided 29.04.2025 in CWJC No. 12575/2019) and sought consideration in light of its findings. The State objected that the petitioner had approached the Court without filing any representation. Disposing of the petition without adjudicating entitlement, the Court directed the petitioner to file a representation with a copy of the order within 30 days before respondent No. 5, the Engineer in Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, who shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within 90 days thereafter.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7247 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Banshidhar Upadhyay Son of Jawahar Upadhay, Resident of- E-8, Phase-2, Ashiyana Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar.

¶7

The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The A.C.S. General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The A.C.S. Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Engineer in Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Accountant General Bihar, Patna.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, AC to GP-20 For the Accountant General : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 12-05-2026

¶15

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the Accountant General.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, especially respondent Nos. 2 to 5, for granting benefit of annual increment for his last year of service which has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has retired on 30^th June, 2018 and the annual increment as per 6th Pay revision and 7th Pay revision has been made admissible to the employee on

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.7247 of 2026 dt.12-05-2026 2/3

¶18

1st of July. For further direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to treat the date of retirement to the petitioner to be 1st July of his respective year of retirement and to grant him all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits. Further prayer is for holding that it was incorrect as part of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to have denied the petitioner for his annual increment for his last year of service in view of the fact that the petitioner, who retired on 30^th June, 2018 in his respective year of his retirement had worked for complete one year. Thus the annual increment which accrued on the next date of his retirement i.e., 1^st July could not have been denied. Further for any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled from the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefit of annual increment for his last year of service has been denied on the ground that the petitioner has retired on 30^th June, 2018 and his annual increment was accrued on 1^st July, 2018 but without giving his annual increment and without revising his pension on the basis of the said increment, the pension of the petitioner was started by the respondent authority. Counsel submits that in similarly situated matter in the case of Shiojee Rai and Others Vs. State of Bihar decided on 29.04.2025 in CWJC No. 12575/2019 , this Court has pleased to consider the case of the said

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.7247 of 2026 dt.12-05-2026 3/3

¶21

petitioners about their entitlement. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner may be considered in the light of the findings given vide order date 29.04.2025 passed in CWJC No. 12575/2019.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the State submits that request for mandamus has been made but from the writ petition it transpires that petitioner has come this Court without filing any representation.

¶23

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off directing the petitioner to file representation along with a copy of this order within 30 days from today before respondent No. 5, the Engineer in Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. Upon receipt of the representation, respondent No. 5, the Engineer in Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within 90 days thereafter.

¶24

Mkr./-

¶25

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶26

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	13.05.2026
Transmission Date

Banshidhar Upadhyay v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banshidhar Upadhyay 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarita Devi @ Sarita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kunwar @ Manoj Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

Sunni Dutta Vs The Union of India through the Director General C.R.P.F.

Chandeshwar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Bandana Devi Vs The State of Bihar