Patna High Court
Sudha Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 13 August, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14644 of 2024
======================================================
Sudha Devi, Wife of Vimal Kumar, Resident of Sadhogope Lane, Near Durga
Asthan, Village/Mohalla- Mayaganj, Apartment, P.S. - Barari, District-
Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Under Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur.
5. The Superintendent Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur.
6. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Bhagalpur.
7. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
8. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Munger.
9. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yatindra Narayan, AC to GP- 16
For the AG, Bihar : Mr. Vivekanand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-08-2025
Heard the Parties.
2. The petitioner on being aggrieved with the action
of the respondents in not extending her retiral benefits and other
dues, despite having been superannuated from service of
31.03.2022
after serving more than 39 years of service on the
post of Neel Chitrak (Blue Printer) has invoked the prerogative
writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to ensure
payment of retiral benefits and other dues. The challenge is also
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
made to a show-cause notice, as contained in Letter No.1170
dated 27.07.2024, issued by the respondent no.5 whereby the
petitioner has been directed to furnish explanation as to why not
her entire pension be forfeited under Rule 139 of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules,
1950').
3. The petitioner was initially engaged in the office
of Minor Irrigation, Munger Division, on 26.02.1985, as a daily
wager and subsequently her services was absorbed in the regular
service with effect from 01.12.1986 in pursuant to the letter
contained in Memo No. 1757 dated 01.08.1986. The services of
the petitioner was, later on, confirmed vide Office Order
contained in Memo No. 859 dated 06.07.2012 w.e.f. 01.12.1989.
During the service period, the petitioner was transferred to
different offices and in consequent to order dated 29.12.2014,
the petitioner submitted her joining in the office of respondent
no.5. While the petitioner was discharging her duty in the year
2019, in the meanwhile one Kishore Mahto lodged complaint
regarding the appointment of the petitioner being illegal,
however, the said complaint was dropped by the Chief Engineer
(Planning and Monitoring) Minor Water Resources Department
vide Memo No. 910 dated 22.08.2019, based upon the report of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
the Internal Complaint Committee, who did not find any
evidence in supported of the allegation. The copies of which are
annexed as Annexures-P/6 and P/7. Upon attaining the age of
superannuation, the petitioner retired on 31.03.2022. The
petitioner was asked to submit requisite documents/pension
papers with photographs, the same was done and finally charge
was handed over to new incumbent.
4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the
respondent authorities did not take any steps in extending the
retiral benefit and other dues of the petitioner, compelling her to
run from pillar to post craving for her own retiral benefits/other
dues. Representations were also filed before all the concerned
authorities but went in vain. In the meantime, all of a sudden
vide letter, as contained in Memo No. 1170 dated 27.07.2024, a
show-cause notice was issued directing the petitioner to ensure
her reply, within three weeks, as to why not a proceeding be
initiated to forfeit the entire pension amount under Rule 139 of
the Rules, 1950. It is further made clear that earlier the
petitioner was asked to make available the necessary
documents. In response thereto the petitioner filed a detailed
reply, but no action has been taken, hence the petitioner has
approached this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
5. Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, learned Advocte for
the petitioner assailing the impugned show-cause, as contained
in Memo No. 1170 dated 27.07.2024 has submitted with all
vehemence, that apart from it is cryptic, arbitrary and perverse,
the same is violative of the principles of natural justice and
arbitrarily issued at such belated stage. The material imputation
leading to issuance of impugned show-cause does not attract
Rule 139 of Rules, 1950; nowhere it remotely suggests that the
services of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. During the entire
service period of the petitioner, there had never been any
departmental enquiry or judicial proceeding and moreover the
services of the petitioner has been found satisfactory to all the
concerned, thus in any view of the matter any action forfeiting
the retiral benefit and other dues and initiation of the proceeding
in terms with Rule 139 of the Rules, 1950 is wholly illegal and
without jurisdiction.
6. Reliance has also been placed on a decision
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of A.P. Srivastava Vs.
Union of India and Others, reported in, (1995) 6 SCC 627 to
reinforce his submission that the pension is not a charity or
bounty nor it is conditional payment solely dependant on the
sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
service and is often described as deferred portion of payment for
past services. It is in fact in the nature of social security plan
provided for a superannuated government servant. If a
temporary government servant who has rendered 20 years of
service, is entitled to pension and thus even if a person
voluntarily retires, there, is no justification for denying the right
to him, when he is required to retire by the employer in the
public interest.
7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further
placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in
Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board Vs.
Muneshwar Prasad Sinha, reported in, (2007) 1 PLJR 111
where the Court while affirming the order of the learned Single
Judge has found no fault in holding the actions of the appellants
Bihar State Electricity Board bad, illegal and wholly without
jurisdiction, as requirements of law were not followed,
inasmuch as the authorities, at no point of time, had found the
services of the writ petitioners unsatisfactory during their
service tenure nor there was prior adjudication about their
misconduct. In such circumstances, the actions of the authorities
in terms of Rule 139 of the Rules are held to be not sustainable
8. Refuting the aforenoted contention, learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
Advocate for the State Mr. Yatindra Narayan, has submitted that
without having been issued any appointment letter to the
petitioner by the competent authority i.e. the Chief engineer for
her absorption in regular establishment, the Superintending
Engineer directed the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation
Division, Munger vide letter no. 1757 dated 01.08.1986 to pay
her salary in the pay scale in the regular establishment of Blue
Printer. The petitioner was transferred on different places, but
her status of having been working as a Daily Wages Employee
was concealed; and there was no valid order of absorption of the
petitioner. Nonetheless her services was confirmed w.e.f.
01.12.1989 vide office order as contained in Memo No. 859
dated 06.07.2012.
9. In the aforesaid premise, complaint was made in
the year 2019, which was dropped, but subsequent thereto
another complaint was filed in the Department on 08.01.2022
alleging the very appointment of the petitioner was illegal. The
matter was examined by the Chief Engineer and a report was
submitted in the Department vide letter no. 1567 dated
13.10.2022 whereupon he was directed by the department to
take disciplinary action against the petitioner. The persons, who
were involved in illegal appointment of the petitioner were also
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
identified against whom decision was also proposed to be taken.
Since the petitioner had worked without any
appointment/absorption letter and illegally received a huge
amount of Government exchequer in connivance with the
officials, a show-cause notice has been issued to her by the
Superintending Engineer vide impugned letter dated 27.07.2024
as to why not her full pension be withheld under Rule 139 of the
Rules, 1950 for causing financial irregularity and loss to the
Government money.
10. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the
submissions set forth by the learned Advocate for the respective
parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it
would be evident that the petitioner was initially engaged as a
daily wages employee on Muster Roll by the order of the
Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur
vide Memo No. 454 dated 26.02.1985 against the post of Nil
Chitrak (Blue Printer) till further order. From the letter
aforenoted, it appears that the appointment of the petitioner was
completely provisional, which was required to be sanctioned
and approved by the Chief Engineer. Subsequent thereto the
petitioner was brought to the regular establishment against the
vacant post of Nil Chitrak (Blue Printer) in the admissible pay
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
scale and finally her services have got approval of the Chief
Engineer and Minor Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur,
and duly confirmed w.e.f. 01.12.1989 under Memo No. 859
dated 06.07.2012. The complaint filed against the petitioner
regarding her illegal appointment was also examined by the
internal committee and on being found no evidence in support of
the allegation, the same was dropped. Thus, from the discussion
aforenoted it is evident that the shortcomings, which was there at
the very inception that has been taken away with the approval of
the services of the petitioner by the competent authority.
11. This Court, even if, accepts the contention of
the State respondents that the petitioner had been discharging
her duties against the post of Nil Chitrak (Blue Printer) and the
same has never been approved, this fact cannot be ignored that
she has been allowed to work on temporary basis for a period of
39 years and at no point of time she was subjected to any
departmental enquiry or judicial proceeding, rather she has been
allowed all the benefits of regular pay scale and other
allowances at par with the Government employees.
12. Prima facie, it appears that there was lack of
adherence to procedural formalities, which was required to be
followed at the level of the concerned authorities. It is not the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
case of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner
was fraudulent or void ab initio, rather she has been brought to
regular establishment by an officer, who was not competent in
this behalf. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826 where the Court taking note of the nature of
the work performed by the temporary employees, which was
perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices and
have been allowed to work for a substantive period of time
directed to regularize their services by setting aside their
termination order.
13. In the case at hand, the question involved herein
only relates to the applicability of Rule 139 of the Rules, 1950;
it is needless to observe that an employee, as a matter of course,
is not entitled to full pension, which is payable on satisfaction of
his service being approved and thoroughly satisfactory, failing
which the authority sanctioning the pension should make such
reduction, as it thinks proper. The aforenoted rule also clarified
that while past record including conduct as recorded is required
to be seen for grant of full pension under Rule 139(a), future
good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
under Rule 43(b). Rule 139(a) is interlinked to Rule 139(b) and
(c). Rule 139(a) speaks that the pension is not payable to the
employee, as a matter of course but it is subject to the service
rendered by the employee unless the service is satisfactory. This
power can be exercised after giving the pensioner concerned a
reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action
proposed to be taken in regard to his pension. Rule 139(c) of
Rules, 1950 makes it clear that this power cannot be exercised
after expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning
the order first passed.
14. The scope and applicability of Rule 43(b) and
Rule 139 of Rules, 1950 was duly considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Md. Idrish
Ansari, reported in, 1995 Suppl. (3) SC 56 where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:
"So far as that rule is concerned, it
empowers the State Authorities to decide the
question whether full pension should be allowed
to a retired Government servant or not in the
circumstances contemplated by the Rules. The
first circumstance is that if the service of the
Government servant concerned is not found to be
thoroughly satisfactory, appropriate reduction in
the pension can be ordered by the sanctioning
authority. The second circumstance is that if it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
found that service of the pensioner was not
thoroughly satisfactory or there is proof of grave
misconduct on the part of the Government
servant concerned while in service, the State
Government in exercise of revisional power may
interfere with the fixation of pension by the
subordinate authority. But such power flowing
from Rule 139, under the aforesaid
circumstances, is further hedged by two
conditions. First condition is that revisional
power has to be exercised in consonance with the
principles of natural justice and secondly such
revisional power can be exercised only within
three years from the date of the sanctioning of the
pension for the first time".
15. The petitioner was all along allowed to
discharge the duty and there had never been any complaint to
the extent of her efficiency, thus in view of the discussed legal
position, Rule 139(b) of Rules, 1950 does not attract, more so
when it is only alleged that her regularization has been made
without following any rules and regulation.
16. Notwithstanding the, aforenoted, fact the
petitioner already attained her age of superannuation on
31.03.2022, the initiation of any proceeding or issuance of
show-cause under Rule 139 of Rules, 1950 on account of her
service being allegedly not confirmed by following the due
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
procedure could not be allowed to be reopened after severance
of the tie of employer and employee. Rule 139 of Rules, 1950
cannot be read in isolation, which would qualify the effect of
Rule 43 of Rules, 1950 under which power to withhold or
withdraw the amount of pension or any part thereof, whether
permanently or specified period is to be exercised only when the
pensioner is found guilty in judicial proceeding or departmental
enquiry or not otherwise.
17. A Bench of this Court in the case of Satyendra
Narain Sinha @ Dr. Satyendra Narain Sinha Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors., reported in, 1999 (3) PLJR 939 has observed
that Rule 139(a) has to be read in the context of its sub-rule (b)
which empowers the sanctioning authority to make such
reduction in the amount of pension where the service has not
been thoroughly satisfactory.
18. Further, the impugned show-cause does not
speak as to under which specific provision, the same has been
issued, as the authority concerned conveniently mentioned only
Rule 139 of Rules, 1950.
19. It is trite that a valid show-cause notice must
include both specific provision under which it is issued. Besides
the specific allegation and the proposed punishment to ensure
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
the principles of natural justice. The notice should clearly detail
the facts constituting the alleged breach, the specific legal
provisions violated and the potential consequences if the
individual failed to respond or if their response is deemed
unsatisfactory.
20. This Court has time and again reminded that
pension and gratuity are being retiral benefits falling under the
definition of property under Article 300(A) of the Constitution
of India, bestowed to the workman on account of his/ her
continuation of long services which would be enabled him to
save for a rainy day. It should be assured the social security to
some extent in the form of either pension, gratuity or provident
fund. In this regard reference may be taken to a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand &
Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., reported, (2013)
12 SCC 21.
21. In view of the discussions made hereinabove,
this Court is of the opinion that initiation of any proceeding
without any material, to attract applicability of Rule 139 of
Rules, 1950, after this belated stage, is wholly without
jurisdiction and per se illegal. Accordingly, the impugned notice
is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to
Patna High Court CWJC No.14644 of 2024 dt.13-08-2025
compute the pension and other retiral benefits taking into
account her past services and to ensure consequential benefits
preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
22. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
