Patna High Court
Rajendra Prasad JaiswalversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Court held that the stipend period does not qualify as substantive and permanent employment under Rule 58, and therefore the petitioner's claim cannot be entertained.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired assistant teacher, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of Memo No. 1592 dated 13-04-2016 which rejected his claim for counting a 17‑month stipend period towards his service continuity and pension benefits, and also sought a mandamus directing his regularisation from 16-10-1973. The State argued that under Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, only substantive and permanent government service qualifies for pension, and that a 2013 Government order clarified that stipend periods are excluded. The petitioner did not challenge the 2013 order, and the Court noted that the stipend period cannot be treated as substantive employment. Relying on the statutory rule and the State's clarification, the Court found no ground to interfere with the memo. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed. The decision re‑affirms that stipend service does not attract pension rights under the applicable rules.
Issues considered
- Whether a period of service on stipend can be counted as substantive and permanent employment for pension purposes under Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
- Whether the High Court can quash Memo No. 1592 dated 13-04-2016 rejecting the petitioner's claim.
- Whether a mandamus can be issued to regularise the petitioner as a regular employee from 16-10-1973.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. Rule 58
Subjects
- pension
- stipend
- substantive service
- regularisation
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Bihar Pension Rules
- civil service
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3600 of 2017
======================================================
Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal Son of late Ram Lakhan Jaiswal Resident of Village
and Post Office- Naokohthi, Police Station- Naokothi, District- Begusarai,
retired while working as an Assistant Teacher in Govt. Primary School-
Bhagwati Asthan Lakho, Anchal- Begusarai, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Secretary, FinancePay Fixation Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.
7. The District Programme OfficerEstablishment, Munger the then District
Superintendent of Education,
8. The District Programme OfficerEstablishment,Begusarai the then District
Superintendent of Educatio
9. The District Treasury Officer, Begusarai
10. The District Accounts Officer, Begusarai.
11. The Headmaster-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer Govt. of Middle
School - Bhagwati Asthan Lakho, A
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Madanjeet Singh- Gp20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
14 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent-State.
2. In the present writ application, the petitioner has
prayed for the grant of following reliefs:
“For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the memo no. 1592 (Establishment)
Patna High Court CWJC No.3600 of 2017(14) dt.06-02-2026
2/5
Begusarai dated 13.04.2016 by which the
claim of the petitioner has been rejected in
which this Hon'ble High Court on
06.09.2011 bearing C.W.J.C. No.
11334/2011 Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal Vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors has been disposed
of with a direction to the respondent
authorities concerned to dispose of the
representation in terms of the order dated
18.07.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 20420 of
2010. "Let the file fresh petitioners
representations alongwith a copy of this
order, and the same shall be disposed of as
directed in the order dated 18.07.2011".
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of mandamus for
commanding directing the respondent
authorities concerned to treat the petitioner
as having been appointed on regular basis
with effect from 16.10.1973 instead of
01.04.1975 in matric trained pay scale for
its consequential benefits to reckon (for
counting) his seniority and other monetary
benefits with effect from the respective date
of the aforesaid stipendiary period i.e.
16.10.1973 treating the same as regular
service rendered by the petitioner on the
same post of matric trained pay scale and
further commanding and directing the
respondent authorities concerned to revise
Patna High Court CWJC No.3600 of 2017(14) dt.06-02-2026
3/5
the pay scale of the petitioner from the date
of his joining on stipendiary basis i.e.
16.10.1973 with its differences of salary of
stipendiary and matric trained pay scale.
(iii) For issuance of any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions for which the writ
petitioner will be found entitled in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
3. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the period
under which the petitioner was being paid stipend has not been
counted for his continuity of service and other consequential
monetary benefits.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
draws the attention of this Court to Rule 58 of Bihar Pension
Rules, 1950 which reads as follows:
“58. The service of a Government
servant does not qualify for pension unless it
conforms to the following three conditions:-
First-The service must be under
Government.
Second-The employment must be
substantive and permanent.
Third-The service must be paid by
Government.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Patna High Court CWJC No.3600 of 2017(14) dt.06-02-2026
4/5
5. As per the above Rule, learned counsel for the State
submits that the employment has to be substantive and
permanent only then the said period can be counted for the
purpose of grant of pension. Since the petitioner for 17 months
was being paid stipend, therefore, the said period, as per him,
has rightly not been taken into consideration as it was not
substantive and permanent. Learned counsel for the respondent-
State further submits that as far back as on 10.04.2013, the
Government of Bihar has already come out with an order
clarifying this position that for payment of pension, the period
under which an employee remains on stipend will not be taken
into consideration. As per the learned counsel, this decision of
the State Government dated 10.04.2013 has never been
challenged by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further
submits that a copy of the order dated 10.04.2013 was
personally handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner
and by filing a supplementary counter affidavit, the same has
also been brought on record.
7. Given the fact that as per Rule 58, one of the
conditions required for payment of pension is that the
employment must be substantive and permanent which has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.3600 of 2017(14) dt.06-02-2026
5/5
clarified by the State Government vide decision dated
10.04.2013 making it clear that the period on which an
employee remains on stipend will not be taken into
consideration as substantive employment for grant of pension,
this Court is not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner because
admittedly, the petitioner was being paid stipend for 17 months
which could not have been taken into account as substantive and
permanent employment and further on account of failure of the
petitioner to question/challenge the order of the Government
dated 10.04.2013 in which it has been clarified that stipend
period will not bee taken into account, this writ application is
dismissed without interfering with the order dated 13.04.2016
contained in Memo No. 1592.
8. Accordingly, the present writ application is
dismissed.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
U
Checking your session…