[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Prafulla Chandra Chaudhary on 1 December, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma, Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3460 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Water
Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar.
3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Senior Accounts Officer, Accountant General, Veer Chand Patel Path,
Patna, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Prafulla Chandra Chaudhary Son of Late Gore Lal Chaudhary, Resident
Ward No.-20, Sri Krishnapuri North, P.S.- Begusarai Town, Dist. Begusarai,
Bihar.
2. Yogendra Prasad Yadav, Son Late Tez Naryan Yadav, Resident Lohia Nagar,
Panhans, P.s.- Muffasil, Dist.- Begusarai, Bihar.
3. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Son Late Vindeshwari Sharma, Resident Dighi Kala
Purvi, Hazaipur, P.S. Sadar, Vaishali, Bihar.
4. Suresh Kumar Rai, Son Late Jadunandan Rai, Resident Near Primary
School, Dhuparchak, Alampur, Gonpura, Patna.
5. Shyam Babu Singh, Son Late Yamuna Singh, Resident House No.-1, Basera
Colony, Road No.- 10, East Indrapuri, Keshri Nagar, Patna, Bihar.
6. Yashwant Kumar Chaudhary Son Ram Sudhir Chaudhari, Resident 102,
Manglam Kunj Apartment, Ram Krishna Path, North S.K. Puri, Phulwari
District- Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar (Sr. Advocate) AAG-4
Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, AC to AAG-4
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)
Date : 01-12-2025
Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar (Senior Advocate) learned AAG-
4 assisted with Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, learned AC to AAG-4 for the
appellants.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1184 of 2024 dt 01-12-2025
2/9
I.A. No. 01 of 2024
2. This interlocutory application has been filed for
condoning the delay of about eight months and sixteen days in filing
the present memo of appeal.
3. For the reasons as mentioned in the aforesaid
interlocutory application, particularly in paragraph nos. 3, 4 5 and 6,
I.A. No. 01 of 2024 is allowed.
L.P.A. No. 1184 of 2024
4. The present intra court appeal has been filed by the
State of Bihar against the order/judgement dated 02.02.2024 passed
in C.W.J.C. No. 3460 of 2020 whereby the Hon'ble Court has been
pleased to allow the writ petition of the petitioners/respondents
directing the State authority to grant them increment notionally to the
recon their last pay drawn and retirement benefits shall be re-fix in
accordance with the judgement passed by the learned Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar,
reported in 2023(6) BLJ 392.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that
the Respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 were appointed as Junior Engineer
on 05.02.1979 in the Department of Water Resources Development.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 superannuated on 30.06.2011, and all other
respondents retired from service with effect from 30.06.2013.
Learned Senior counsel for the appellants further submits that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1184 of 2024 dt 01-12-2025
3/9
petitioners/respondents were retired in the year 2011 and 2013
respectively and they have claimed increment notionally to recon
their last pay drawn and retirement benefits shall be re-fixed.
Learned Senior counsel for the appellants further submits that the
petitioner/respondent nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 have been retired on
30.06.2013
and petitioner/respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been retired
on 30.06.2011 respectively and to decide the representation of the
petitioners/respondents for payment of notional increment due to the
petitioners/respondents after completion of one year of service from
01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants further
submits that they had filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition
stating therein that the writ petitioners/respondents claimed
increment on the ground that they have completed full one year of
service from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, and 01.07.2010 to
30.06.2011 respectively, therefore they are entitled to get one
increment which is due on 01.07.2013 and 01.07.2011 respectively.
Further, in the writ petition the writ
petitioners/respondents claimed that the date of their superannuation
should be treated as 01.07.2013 and 01.07.2011 instead of
30.06.2013 and 30.06.2011 respectively. However, in the counter
affidavit in the writ petition, the State appellants have claimed that
since the petitioners were not in service on 01.07.2013 and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1184 of 2024 dt 01-12-2025
01.07.2011 respectively, they cannot be given benefit of further
increment in view of Clause 10 of the Resolution No. 630 dated
21.01.2010 of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar
(Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in the writ petition).
7. We have heard the counsel for the appellants at length,
the writ Court had passed the order on the basis of the judgment
reported in 2023(6) BLJ 392 in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra),
referring paragraph-4 of the aforesaid judgment which is quoted
hereinbelow:
"4. We would have normally referred the matter for
consideration by a larger bench especially since, we are
bound by a coordinate bench decision of this Court and the
decisions of other High Courts have only a persuasive
effect; however strong the persuasion and our inclination to
follow the dictum of the other High Courts. That would not
be necessary, if we notice the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in All India Judges Association vs. Union
of India & Ors; 2023(4) BLJ 6 (SC) in which similar
recommendations have been upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. We extract paragraph no. 53, 54 and 55 of
the aforesaid judgment.
53. Three sets of decisions had been rendered by
different High Courts regarding this. The first view, which
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1184 of 2024 dt 01-12-2025
was taken by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat
and Allahabad, is that when the increment becomes due the
next day after retirement, the employee ought not to be
denied the benefit of the increment for the purpose of pay.
The second view, which was taken by the High Courts of
Madras, Orissa and Delhi is that the increment would
accrue to officers only for the purpose of pension alone.
The third view, taken by the Andhra Pradesh, Himachal
Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts is that the increment
cannot be granted to the officers.
54. The law has now been settled by this Court in a
recent judgment Director, KPTCL vs. CP Mundinamani.
This Court approved the judgment of the High Court of
Allahabad's view in Nand Vijay Singh vs. Union of India it
was held:-
"24. ... In the case of a government
servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on
which increment falls due/becomes payable
looses significance and must give way to the
right of the government servant to receive
increment due to satisfactory service of a year so
that the scheme is not construed in a manner that
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1184 of 2024 dt 01-12-2025
it offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
55. In such circumstances, the recommendations of
the Commission in so far as it notionally grants the
increment for the purposes of pension is completely
justified. As a consequence of the acceptance of the
recommendation, the calculation of pension must notionally
include the increment for the purposes of calculation of
pension. This will also obviate any confusion. It is therefore
directed that the High Courts amend the applicable rule to
state that the increment which becomes due to the judicial
officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally
included in the calculation of his pension as his last pay,
subject to the vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-."
8. From perusal of paragraph-4 of the aforesaid judgment,
it transpires that the learned Division Bench of this Court has passed
the order on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association Vs. Union
of India & Others, reported in 2023 (4) BLJ SC-6, referring
paragraph nos. 53, 54 and 55 which is quoted hereinbelow:
"53. Three sets of decisions had been rendered by
different High Courts regarding this. The first view, which
was taken by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1184 of 2024 dt 01-12-2025
Gujarat and Allahabad, is that when the increment
becomes due the next day after retirement, the employee
ought not to be denied the benefit of the increment for the
purpose of pay. The second view, which was taken by the
High Courts of Madras, Orissa and Delhi is that the
increment would accrue to officers only for the purpose of
pension alone. The third view, taken by the Andhra
Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts is
that the increment cannot be granted to the officers.
54. The law has now been settled by this Court in a recent
judgment Director, KPTCL vs. CP Mundinamani. This
Court approved the judgment of the High Court of
Allahabad's view in Nand Vijay Singh vs. Union of India it
was held:-
"24. ... In the case of a government
servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on
which increment falls due/becomes payable
looses significance and must give way to the
right of the government servant to receive
increment due to satisfactory service of a year so
that the scheme is not construed in a manner that
it offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1184 of 2024 dt 01-12-2025
55. In such circumstances, the recommendations of the
Commission in so far as it notionally grants the increment
for the purposes of pension is completely justified. As a
consequence of the acceptance of the recommendation, the
calculation of pension must notionally include the
increment for the purposes of calculation of pension. This
will also obviate any confusion. It is therefore directed that
the High Courts amend the applicable rule to state that the
increment which becomes due to the judicial officer on the
day after his retirement may be notionally included in the
calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the
vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-."
9. From perusal of the aforesaid judgement, it appears that
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 53, 54 and 55 of the aforesaid
judgement (All India Judges Association) (supra) has held that "In
the case of a government servant retiring on 30 th of June the next day
on which increment falls due/becomes payable losses significance
and must give way to the right of the government servant to receive
increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is
not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India".
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1184 of 2024 dt 01-12-2025
10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality
and infirmity in the order of the writ Court, no case is made out for
interference in the matter.
11. There is no merit in the present appeal and accordingly,
LPA stands dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)
I agree.
Ibrar//- ( Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 21.11.2025
Uploading Date 01.12.2025
Transmission Date N.A.
