Patna High Court
Shri Parmanand Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 28 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4475 of 2021
======================================================
Shri Parmanand Prasad Singh, aged about 75 years, male, S/o Late Shri Ram
Narain Singh, R/O Village - Kamla, P.S - Ujiarpur, District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Samastipur, District - Samastipur.
5. The Treasury Officer, Samastipur, District - Samastipur.
6. The Headmaster, Nationalized Mahanth Awadh Bihari Raghunath Jha High
School, Bahadura, District - Samastipur.
7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Ankita Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, AC to SC-28
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-03-2024
Heard Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vivek
Anand Amritesh, learned AC to SC-28 appearing on behalf
of the State.
2. Order put to challenge in this writ petition is
dated 18.07.2018, issued by the Director (Secondary
Education), Bihar, Patna, vide Memo No. Secondary
Patna High Court CWJC No.4475 of 2021 dt.28-03-2024
2/5
Education-Estt.-Kha-09/2016/1793, whereby the respondent
authorities have denied pension to the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the
writ petition, as well as submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner, is that though there were several litigations
earlier between the State and the petitioner regarding the
date of appointment of the petitioner but now the
undisputed fact is that the petitioner was appointed as clerk
on 01.09.1994 in Government school called Mahant Awadh
Bihari Raghunath Jha High School, Bahadura, Samastipur.
The petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of
superannuation, on 30.11.2003. The petitioner thus served
as clerk (regular government employee) for 9 years and 3
months. The order impugned in the writ petition reveals that
the petitioner has been denied pension for want of required
length of 10 years of regular service under the relevant
Pension Rules.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not
disputed that under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, for an
employee to get a pension, minimum 10 years of regular
service is required to be rendered. Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4475 of 2021 dt.28-03-2024
3/5
petitioner has also not disputed that the petitioner did not
render minimum 10 years of regular service as provided
under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 so as to entitle the
petitioner for grant of pension. The only argument put
forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one
Parmeshwar Paswan, who was a chaukidar since 1955, has
been given pension by the respondent authorities who
otherwise was also not entitled for pension under the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950.
5. From submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, this
Court is of the view that since the petitioner has not
rendered minimum 10 years of service as clerk in a
government school, the petitioner is found to be not entitled
to pension as he does not fulfill the required length of
service as provided under the Bihar Pension Rules,1950 for
grant of the pension after retirement.
6. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears
that Parmeshwar Paswan was working as chaukidar since
1955 and he had preferred LPA No. 544 of 2012 wherein
there was a direction by the Court to pay pension to him by
Patna High Court CWJC No.4475 of 2021 dt.28-03-2024
4/5
condoning deficiency of 7 months in service under Rule
106 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
7. Rule 106 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950
empowers the authorities concerned to condone deficiency
of 3 months and beyond respectively in qualifying service
provided under the rules for entitlement of pension in a
situation comprehended under Rule 106 of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950. The respondent no.3, after examining
the case of the petitioner within the ambit of Rule 106 of the
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, vide the impugned order dated
18.07.2018
, has opined that the petitioner is not entitled for
condonation of the deficiency in qualifying service for
payment of pension.
8. Having taken note of the case projected by
the petitioner, the circumstances under which Parmeshwar
Paswan was granted pension in the light of the order dated
14.07.2014 passed in LPA No. 544 of 2012, I am of the
view that the case of the petitioner is not similar with that of
Parmeshwar Paswan.
9. Accordingly, I am not inclined to direct the
respondent authorities to condone the deficiency of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4475 of 2021 dt.28-03-2024
qualifying service of the petitioner as was directed by this
Court in the case of Parmeshwar Paswan in LPA No. 544 of
2012.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Nani Tagia, J)
Nilmani/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.03.2024
Transmission Date NA
