Patna High Court
Raj Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The Court held that the respondents must restore the recovered pension amounts and re‑fix the petitioners' pension on the ACP promotional scale in accordance with the parity principle.
Summary
Two former police constables, Raj Kumar Singh and Ranjana Devi, retired in 2021 and 2024 and challenged a memo that reduced their pension to the Hawaldar pay scale and demanded repayment of excess pension amounts. They argued that, under the principle of parity and Supreme Court judgments, they were entitled to pension based on the ACP promotional scale despite not meeting promotion eligibility. The State contended that the earlier decision in LPA No. 458 of 2021 governed the matter and that no recovery was permissible. The Patna High Court examined the Supreme Court decisions in Rafiq Masih and related case law, finding that the petitioners were similarly situated to earlier beneficiaries and were entitled to the higher pension. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondents to restore the recovered amounts and re‑fix the pension in accordance with the parity principle. The writ petition was allowed in part, directing compliance within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the State can recover post‑retirement pension amounts from retired police constables whose pension was fixed at a lower pay scale despite promotion to ACP.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pension based on the ACP promotional scale under the parity principle as laid down by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the earlier judgment in LPA No. 458 of 2021 governs the present case or is superseded by Supreme Court precedent.
Subjects
- pension
- post‑retirement benefits
- police constable
- ACP promotion
- parity principle
- recovery of pension
- writ jurisdiction
- Supreme Court judgment
- State of Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3776 of 2025
======================================================
1. Raj Kumar Singh Son of Late Harischandra Prasad, Resident of B.M.P.- 2,
Dehri, P.S. - Dehri on sone, District - Rohtas at present resident of Mahavir
Colony, Road No. - 2A, near Mahavir Mandir, P.S.- - Beur, District- Patna.
2. Ranjana Devi, Wife of Rameshwar Jha, Resident of village- Kalsar, P.S.-
Dandkhora, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Director General, Bihar Special Armed Police, Patel Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna, Bihar- cum-Chairman of the Committee.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Budget/Appeal/Welfare, Patel Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
5. The Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Patel Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna, Bihar.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police,
Central Range, Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
7. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
8. The Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police-2, Dehri, District- Rohtas.
9. The Commandant Bihar Special Armed Police - 7, Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Praveen, Advocate
Mr. Barun Kr. Singh, advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, AC to SC 9
Ms. Sushmita sharma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-01-2026
The petitioners were Constables of Police who
retired from service on superannuation on 31st January 2021 and
31st January 2024 respectively. After their retirement, they
approached this Court under constitutional writ jurisdiction for
Patna High Court CWJC No.3776 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
2/6
the following reliefs:
“A). To issue an appropriate
writ/order/orders, direction/directions in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the memo
no. 318/P5 dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure-3)
issued under the signature of Respondent
no.-5 Inspector General of Police (Head
Quarter), whereby and where under the pay
scale of the petitioners; who has been
promoted/granted first ACP in the pay scale
of 4000-6000, has been re-fixed in the pay
scale of Hawaldar as 3200-4900 with
further direction to recover excess payment
made to the petitioners, which is contrary to
the direction of the Director General of
Bihar Military Police (BMP), Patna
contained in memo no. 147 dated 18.10.2019
(Annexure-2) and also in teeth of Hon’ble
Apex Court Judgment in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih; reported in
(2014) 4 PLJR 37 SC.
B.) For that the respondent
authorities may kindly be directed to
considered the case of the petitioners in the
light of order dated 02.09.2024 passed by
this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 8062/2021
in which the learned court had considered
the all judgments of this Hon’ble Court as
well as the Hon’ble apex Court in the matter
Patna High Court CWJC No.3776 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
3/6
of other exactly similarly situated persons
who have come before this Hon’ble Court
for the refund of the amount which has been
arbitrarily deducted from their post-
retirement benefits, petitioners have also
come before this Hon’ble Court for the same
relief/direction of refund of the amount
which has been deducted from their post-
retirement benefits by the respondent
authorities with further direction to re-fix the
pension of the petitioners in the light of
judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in
L.P.A. No.- 458/2021.
C). For any other relief/s to which
the petitioners are found entitled by this
Hon’ble Court.”
2. Suffice it to say that, by virtue of an order dated
24th December, Inspector General of Police, Bihar, the
petitioners were directed to make refund of certain amount of
post-retiral benefit, viz., 4,28,362/- (Four Lakh Twenty Eight
Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two) and 3,74,754/- (Three
Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Four) from
the post-retiral benefit of PW-2. Learned Advocate General for
the petitioners submits that the issue as to whether any amount
of post-retiral benefit can be deducted or not has been well-
settled in LPA 458 of 2021 in CWJC No. 1744 of 2020,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3776 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
4/6
(Srikant Dubey and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.).
3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners
also refers to another unreported decision of this Court passed in
Saheb Sharan Das Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (CWJC
No. 8062 of 2021) decided on 02nd December 2024.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 has already superannuated on
31.01.2024 and the husband of the petitioner no. 2 has
superannuated on 31st January 2021, therefore, any recovery of
post-retiral benefit in the teeth of the mandate of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, and Thomas Daniel v. State of
Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. Similar issue was
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 458
of 2021 vide judgment dated 26th April 2024 and it was held by
the Division Bench relying on the decision in the Amresh
Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in
2023 (2) PLJR (SC) 423 that for claiming ACP benefit,
employee need not fulfill the eligibility criteria for promotion to
the next higher cadre. In other words, if an employee is
stagnated in a particular cadre for 12 and 24 years, he is entitled
to get the next promotional scale. The post-retiral benefit of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3776 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
5/6
petitioners in the instant case was computed on the basis of their
promotional ACP, as they did not have any scope of promotion
during the stipulated period of 12-24 years.
5. The learned Advocate on behalf of the State, on the
other hand, submits that the case of the petitioners is required to
be considered in the light of the decision as passed by the
Division Bench in LPA No. 458 of 2021, if the respondent
authorities find the case of the petitioners at par with the
appellants of the aforesaid appeal, the post-retiral benefit of the
petitioners cannot be withheld. The learned Advocate for the
State frankly submits that after Rafique Masih’s case which was
followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequent
judgments, she has nothing more to state.
6. On due consideration of the submissions made by
the learned counsels for the petitioners and the State, and taking
note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this
Court, it is found that the case of the petitioners is based on
parity. Therefore, the respondents are directed to restore the
recovery amount in favour of the petitioners within eight weeks
from the date of communication of this order and re-fix the
pensionary benefits of the petitioners in light of the decision
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 458 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3776 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
6/6
2021.
7. The instant writ petition is thus, allowed on contest
to the extent as above.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
suraj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 08.01.2026
Transmission Date 08.01.2026
Checking your session…