Patna High Court
Jagdish Prasad @ Jagdish Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions of Notification No. 3127 and therefore was not entitled to the grant of ACP.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired health service employee, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a 24‑Nov‑2022 order that denied him the grant of Additional Compensatory Pension (ACP) on the ground that he had neither passed the departmental accounts examination nor applied for exemption before retirement. He argued that earlier proceedings before this Court (CWJC No. 1210 of 2019) and a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 309 of 2019) should compel the authorities to grant the 2nd and 3rd ACP and pay arrears with interest. The State contended that the petitioner failed to meet the conditions of Notification No. 3127 dated 06‑Mar‑2018, which required a pre‑retirement exemption application, and that the rejection was based on statutory criteria, not delay or laches. The Court examined the impugned order and found that the petitioner indeed did not satisfy the notification’s requirements. Consequently, the Court held that no relief could be granted and dismissed the writ petition. The decision affirmed that non‑fulfilment of statutory conditions bars entitlement to ACP benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the grant of ACP can be quashed by certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to 2nd and 3rd ACP despite not having passed the accounts examination or filed a pre‑retirement exemption.
- Whether the petitioner's claim is barred by delay or laches.
- Whether the Court can direct payment of arrears with statutory and penal interest.
Subjects
- Additional Compensatory Pension
- ACP
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Notification No. 3127
- departmental examination exemption
- laches
- writ petition
- civil service pension
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17847 of 2025
======================================================
Jagdish Prasad @ Jagdish Prasad Singh Son of Late Lal Bihari Singh
Resident of Mohalla- Rama Devi Vila, Flat No.- 102, Road No.- 6, Indrapuri,
P.O.- Keshri Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Health Services (Filaria Control), Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Director- cum- State Programme Officer, Health Services
(Filaria Control), Bihar.
5. The Deputy Director, Health Services (Filaria Control), Government of
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Advocate General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of order(s),
direction(s) or writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order dated
24.11.2022 passed by Additional Director-
cum-State Programme Officer, Health
Service (Filaria Control) Bihar, Patna
whereby and where under the claim of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17847 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
2/5
petitioner regarding grant of ACP has been
rejected on the ground that he was not filed
any application subject to exemption from
the departmental exam during the service
period or before 27.06.2018 and 08.08.2018.
(ii) For issuance of order(s),
direction(s) or writ in the nature of
mandamus to direct the respondent
authorities to grant the benefit of 2nd ACP
and 3rd ACP from the respective dates to the
petitioner and to release the consequential
financial benefits along with statutory as
well as penal interest from the due date of its
payment to the date of its actual release.
(iii) For any other relief(s) for
which the petitioner is entitled.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in CWJC No.
1210 of 2019, which was disposed of vide judgment dated
21.01.2019, wherein he was directed to file a fresh
representation within a period of three weeks seeking an order
for release of the arrears of the salary of the petitioner for the
period of his suspension from 15.05.2012 to 12.09.2013.
4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner, being
aggrieved by the order passed in CWJC No. 1210 of 2019,
preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 309 of 2019, which was
Patna High Court CWJC No.17847 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
3/5
heard and disposed of vide judgment dated 19.02.2021 passed
by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble
Division Bench partially modified the order passed by the
Hon’ble Single Judge, directing that the appellant shall file a
detailed representation before the competent authority for grant
of ACP.
5. Counsel further submits that thereafter the
petitioner preferred a representation for grant of ACP, but the
respondent authorities, vide order dated 24.11.2022, rejected the
claim of the petitioner for grant of ACP solely on the ground
that the petitioner had neither passed the accounts examination
during his service period nor filed any application for exemption
from the departmental examination, and he retired on
31.03.2014.
6. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has
already agitated the matter in the writ petition as well as in the
LPA, therefore, the contention of the State is illegal and not
sustainable. Counsel further submits that the order dated
24.11.2022 (Annexure R-4) be quashed and a direction be
issued for payment of ACP.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the reasons for rejection of ACP have already been
Patna High Court CWJC No.17847 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
4/5
well explained in the impugned letter dated 24.11.2022. Counsel
further submits that it has been categorically indicated that the
petitioner has neither passed the accounts examination during
his tenure of service nor filed any application for exemption
from the departmental examination during his service period.
8. It has also been contended that, in the impugned
order, it is stated that the petitioner retired on 31.03.2014 and
filed an application for exemption only after his retirement, i.e.,
on 27.06.2018 & 08.08.2018. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief in light of Notification No. 3127 dated
06.03.2018.
9. Counsel further submits that the submission
made by the petitioner that he had earlier moved before this
Hon’ble Court is also not correct, as the petitioner approached
this Court five years after his retirement vide CWJC No. 1210
of 2019 and subsequently in LPA No. 309 of 2019, but during
the said period he was not in service.
10. Counsel further submits that the observations
made in the LPA are necessary for deciding the present case. It
is further submitted that though liberty to file a representation
has been granted, a condition has also been added that if the
competent authority finds that the appellant is entitled to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17847 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
5/5
benefit of ACP, the same may be granted within three months
from the date of filing of such representation, and if the
competent authority finds that the appellant is not entitled to
grant of ACP, the same may be rejected by a reasoned and
speaking order within the said period.
11. It has also been observed that non-grant of ACP
is a continuing wrong resulting in lower salary/pension, as such,
the claim of the appellant will not be hit by delay and laches.
12. Here, in the present case, after going through
the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the claim of
the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground of delay and
laches, rather, it has been rejected on the ground that the
conditions of Notification No. 3127 dated 06.03.2018 have not
been fulfilled. It is due to the reason that the petitioner failed to
fulfill such conditions, this Court is not inclined to grant any
relief to the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…