[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Baij Nath Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 24 February, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.697 of 2025
======================================================
Baij Nath Ram Son of Late Bira Ram, Resident of Village and Post- Bagwa
Via Garhani, P.S.- Garhani, District- Bhojpur, State of Bihar, Pin- 802203.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna- 800001.
2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, General Administration
Department, Old Secretariat, Patna-800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P.-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 24-02-2026
This writ petition has been filed by Mr. Baij Nath
Ram, seeking the following relief(s):-
(i) For quashing the order dated
23.08.2024
of Govt of Bihar, Communicated
through the Letter No. 7/ मु क० 08-19/2021 सा० प्र०
13528 dated 28.08.2024 by the seal and signature
of Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Under Secretary of Govt. of
Bihar, General Administration, contained in
Annexure-P/8 to this petition.
(ii) For directing the respondents to
restrain them from illegal and unauthorized
withholding of pension of the petitioner in old
Patna High Court CWJC No.697 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
pension scheme without any proper reason and
fault of the petitioner.
(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 arrear within a short time limit.
(iv) For directing the respondents to
stop harassing the petitioner by their arbitrary,
illegal and prejudiced acts.
(v) And/or to pass any order/orders
which may deem fit in the light of facts mentioned
hereinafter.
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.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.697 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
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.
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 Buxar. 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 Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saharsa on 31.01.2019.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.697 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
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.
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.
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.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on the
basis of the same merit list, certain officers who joined service
Patna High Court CWJC No.697 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
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.
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.
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 that his joining was
Patna High Court CWJC No.697 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
delayed 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.
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.
12. In the counter affidavit, it has been specifically
stated that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court
seeking substantially similar relief by filing C.W.J.C. No. 11323
of 2021. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2023. The
respondents have placed reliance upon the said judgment, which
has been annexed as Annexure-R/A to the counter affidavit.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents
emphatically contended that since the petitioner's earlier writ
petition seeking identical relief has already been dismissed by a
Division Bench, the present writ petition is not maintainable and
Patna High Court CWJC No.697 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
the relief sought for cannot be granted.
14. Having considered the aforesaid submission, we
find that the fact of filing of the earlier writ petition and its
dismissal by a Division Bench are not in dispute. The relief
sought in the present writ petition is substantially similar to the
relief claimed in the earlier writ proceeding. Once the issue has
already been adjudicated by a competent Division Bench of this
Court, the same cannot be reconsidered in the present
proceeding.
15. Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner was appointed after 01.09.2005, i.e., after the New
Pension Scheme came into force. The petitioner was
superannuated on 31.01.2019 and remained governed by the
New Pension Scheme throughout his service tenure. Therefore,
the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11323 of 2021 clearly covers
the issues involved in the present case.
16. In view of the dismissal of the earlier writ
petition filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief, and since
the issue has already been adjudicated by a Division Bench of
this Court, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ
petition is not maintainable and no relief can be granted to the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.697 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
17. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of
merits, stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 27.02.2026
Transmission Date
