Patna High Court
Bimla PaulversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner's claim for extension of the Old Pension Scheme benefits is valid and the order rejecting it is set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Bimla Paul, was appointed as Lecturer in 2006 after a prolonged administrative delay despite a 1999 recommendation by the Bihar Public Service Commission. She later exercised the option to opt for the Old Pension Scheme under the Finance Department's Resolution dated 28‑Nov‑2023, but her claim was rejected on the ground that no other employee appointed under the same 1998 advertisement had been granted the Old Scheme. The Court examined whether the delay in appointment, which was beyond the petitioner's control, disqualified her from the benefit and whether the requirement to prove another employee's entitlement was a valid condition. Relying on earlier judgments that administrative delay cannot deprive an employee of Old Scheme benefits, the Court held that the petitioner satisfied all conditions of the Resolution. Consequently, the order rejecting her claim was set aside and the petition was allowed, directing the respondent to reconsider her claim in accordance with the Resolution.
Issues considered
- Whether an employee whose appointment was delayed due to administrative inaction, but whose recruitment advertisement predates the cut‑off date, is entitled to opt for the Old Pension Scheme under the 28‑Nov‑2023 resolution.
- Whether the requirement to establish that another similarly situated employee has already received the Old Pension Scheme benefit is a valid condition precedent.
- Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of equality and non‑discrimination.
Subjects
- Pension Scheme
- Old Pension Scheme
- New Pension Scheme
- Administrative delay
- Equality
- Discrimination
- Bihar Public Service Commission
- Resolution
- Option to opt
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.626 of 2025
======================================================
Bimla Paul W/o Late Simon Baptist Thakur, Presently R/o- Flat No.206,
Madhuri Enclave, Opposite Gate No.93, Digha Ghat, PS - Digha, District
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Higher Education, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director, Higher Education, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna
5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Kant Amar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandav, GA-3
For the AG, Bihar : Mr. Ram Kinkar Choubey, Adv.
For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Prabhakar Pahepuri, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-07-2026
Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandal, learned counsel for
the State as well as Mr. Ram Kinkar Choubey, learned counsel
for the Accountant General, Bihar.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
2/13
25.07.2024 issued under Letter No.14/M07-05/2024-1080 by
respondent No.2, whereby her claim for extension of the benefit
of the Old Pension Scheme in place of the New Pension Scheme
has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for a
direction upon the respondents to extend the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme to her in terms of the Resolution issued by the
Finance Department, Government of Bihar, contained in Memo
No.1206(P) dated 28.11.2023.
3. The brief facts which led to the fling of the present
writ petition, are that the Bihar Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") issued
Advertisement No.91/1998 inviting applications for
appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Home Science
Department, along with other advertisements pertaining to
different subjects and departments. Pursuant thereto, the
petitioner submitted her application and participated in the
interview held on 11.02.1999. Upon being found suitable, the
Commission, vide Letter No.1834, recommended the names of
the petitioner and one Kumari Sangita Bhagat for appointment
to the post of Lecturer.
4. Despite such recommendation having been made
by the Commission, the appointment letter was not issued to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
3/13
petitioner for reasons not attributable to her. Consequently, she
was constrained to approach this Court by filing C.W.J.C.
No.4223 of 2000, which came to be disposed of on 24.02.2006
with a direction to the competent authority to issue the
appointment letter in her favour. In compliance with the said
order, the Human Resource Department issued Notification
contained in Memo No.976 dated 01.07.2006 notifying her
appointment. Subsequently, by Corrigendum contained in
Memo No.991 dated 06.07.2006, her place of posting was
specified, whereupon the petitioner joined her duties on
07.07.2006.
5. Since the petitioner's appointment materialized
after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme w.e.f.
01.09.2005, she was required to submit the prescribed form for
enrolment under the New Pension Scheme, which she
accordingly submitted on 13.11.2006. The petitioner thereafter
continued to discharge her duties without any complaint until
the Government of Bihar, Finance Department, issued
Resolution contained in Memo No.1206(P) dated 28.11.2023,
whereby an opportunity was extended to employees appointed
pursuant to advertisements issued prior to 01.09.2005 to
exercise an option for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme,
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
4/13
subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
6. Immediately upon coming to know of the said
Resolution, the petitioner exercised her option on 28.12.2023
seeking coverage under the Old Pension Scheme. Shortly
thereafter, she attained the age of superannuation and retired
from service on 31.01.2024 from the post of Assistant Professor.
However, her claim was rejected by respondent No.2 on the
ground that no material had been produced to establish that any
teacher appointed pursuant to Advertisement No.91/1998 had
been granted the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.
Consequently, the petitioner's claim, along with those of two
other Assistant Professors in the Home Science Department,
stood disapproved.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
assailing the impugned order, submitted that it is an admitted
position that the petitioner had applied pursuant to
Advertisement No.91/1998 issued by the Bihar Public Service
Commission on 21.06.1998. It is further submitted that,
simultaneously, the Commission had also issued Advertisement
Nos.89/1998, 90/1998 and 92/1998 for appointment to the posts
of Lecturers in different subjects. The petitioner was duly
selected, and the Commission recommended her appointment on
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
5/13
26.10.1999. However, for reasons wholly beyond her control,
the appointment letter was not issued, compelling her to invoke
the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.4223 of
2000. Pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2006 passed therein, she
was eventually appointed vide Memo No.976 dated 01.07.2006,
followed by Corrigendum contained in Memo No.991 dated
06.07.2006.
8. It is contended that there was absolutely no lapse or
delay attributable to the petitioner. Although the
recommendation in her favour had been made in the year 1999,
the appointment could materialise only in the year 2006 solely
on account of administrative delay on the part of the
respondents. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be deprived of the
benefit of the Old Pension Scheme merely because her
appointment was delayed due to reasons beyond her control. It
is further submitted that, in the meantime, the Old Pension
Scheme stood replaced by the New Pension Scheme with effect
from 01.09.2005, thereby depriving the petitioner of the benefit
to which she would otherwise have been entitled.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that, in several
identical matters where appointments pursuant to
advertisements issued prior to 01.09.2005 were delayed on
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
6/13
account of administrative lapses, this Court has held that the
employees concerned cannot be denied the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme merely because their appointments were made
after the cut-off date. Such denial has been held to be arbitrary,
unjust and discriminatory. In support of the aforesaid
submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
learned Division Bench of this Court in The State of Bihar &
Ors. v. Ganpati Singh (L.P.A. No.204 of 2014).
10. It is further submitted that the impugned order is
wholly contrary to the Resolution dated 28.11.2023. The
Resolution nowhere prescribes that an applicant must establish
that another similarly situated employee appointed under the
same advertisement has already been extended the benefit of the
Old Pension Scheme. Once the petitioner admittedly fulfils all
the eligibility conditions stipulated under the Resolution, there
was neither any justification nor any legal basis for rejecting her
claim solely on the ground that she failed to produce evidence
regarding extension of the benefit to other similarly situated
employees. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by this Court in Md. Kayumuddin Ansari &
Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No.10901 of 2006).
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
7/13
submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was
appointed pursuant to Memo Nos.976 dated 01.07.2006
and 991 dated 06.07.2006 and joined her duties on 07.07.2006,
i.e., much after the cut-off date of 01.09.2005, from which the
New Pension Scheme came into force. It is contended that the
Resolution dated 28.11.2023 contemplates cases where, under
the same advertisement, certain candidates were extended the
benefit of the Old Pension Scheme while others were brought
under the New Pension Scheme on account of administrative
delay or pending litigation. In such circumstances, uniformity
was sought to be maintained by extending the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme to all similarly situated candidates. However, in
the petitioner's case, it is submitted that no candidate appointed
pursuant to Advertisement No.91/1998 has been granted the
benefit of the Old Pension Scheme and, therefore, the petitioner
cannot claim parity under the said Resolution.
12. It is further contended that the petitioner accepted
her appointment under the New Pension Scheme without any
protest and voluntarily submitted the requisite forms for
enrolment thereunder. She continued under the said scheme
throughout her service tenure and, for the first time, sought the
benefit of the Old Pension Scheme only on 28.12.2023, barely a
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
8/13
month prior to her retirement on attaining the age of
superannuation. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned
order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting
interference by this Court.
13. Having considered the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials
available on record, this Court finds that certain facts are not in
dispute. The Bihar Public Service Commission had issued
Advertisement Nos.89/1998, 90/1998, 91/1998 and 92/1998 on
21.06.1998 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of
Lecturers in different subjects. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
submitted her application in response to Advertisement
No.91/1998 for appointment as Lecturer in the Home Science
Department. It is also not in dispute that the entire selection
process stood concluded and the Bihar Public Service
Commission recommended the petitioner's name for
appointment on 11.02.1999.
14. Once the recommendation had been made by the
Commission, the only formality that remained was the issuance
of the appointment letter. However, despite the recommendation
having been made in favour of the petitioner, the respondents
failed to issue the appointment letter, thereby compelling the
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
9/13
petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing
C.W.J.C. No.4223 of 2000. It was only in compliance with the
order passed by this Court in the said writ petition that the
petitioner came to be appointed in the year 2006. Evidently,
therefore, the delay in issuance of the appointment letter cannot,
by any stretch of imagination, be attributed to the petitioner.
15. This Court further finds that while disposing of
C.W.J.C. No.4223 of 2000, the learned Single Judge had
specifically noticed that the recommendation in favour of the
petitioner had already been made; the sanctioned post against
which she was recommended continued to remain vacant and;
despite such recommendation, no appointment was made. It was
also noticed that the Bihar Public Service Commission had
revalidated its recommendation vide Letter No.374 dated
30.04.2004, yet the respondents failed to act upon the same.
These undisputed facts unmistakably establish that the delay in
appointment was solely on account of administrative inaction
and laches on the part of the State authorities and not due to any
omission or default on the part of the petitioner.
16. It has further been brought to the notice of this
Court that candidates appointed pursuant to Advertisement
No.92/1998, which was also issued on 21.06.1998, have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
10/13
extended the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme as their
appointments were made prior to the enforcement of the New
Pension Scheme with effect from 01.09.2005. Be that as it may,
even assuming that no candidate appointed pursuant to
Advertisement No.91/1998 has been granted the benefit of the
Old Pension Scheme, such a circumstance, by itself, cannot
constitute a valid ground to deny the petitioner's claim. The
entitlement of the petitioner is required to be examined
independently in the light of the Resolution dated 28.11.2023
and cannot be made contingent upon the case of any other
employee. It is further clarified that the cause of action has
arisen in favour of the petitioner the date on which resolution
dated 28.11.2003 has been issued, inviting option for coverage
of Old Pension Scheme. Thus the plea of the State regarding
belated claims has no leg to stand.
17. A careful reading of the Resolution dated
28.11.2023 reveals that an employee seeking coverage under the
Old Pension Scheme is required to satisfy the conditions
prescribed therein. Prima facie, the petitioner satisfies all the
requisite conditions. The advertisement pursuant to which she
was appointed had admittedly been issued much prior to
01.09.2005 and with respect to advertisement for appointment to
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
11/13
the post of Lecturer in different subjects bearing Advertisement
No.92/1998, the candidate has been extended the benefit of Old
Pension Scheme. The entire selection process, including the
recommendation by the Commission, had been completed well
before the cut-off date; the delay in issuance of the appointment
letter was solely attributable to administrative reasons; the
petitioner exercised her option within the time stipulated under
the Resolution; and, as submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, she has not received any amount under the
Contributory Pension Scheme till date.
18. The impugned order reveals that the petitioner's
claim has been rejected solely on the ground that she failed to
establish that any candidate appointed pursuant to
Advertisement No.91/1998 had been extended the benefit of the
Old Pension Scheme. Such a consideration is wholly unjust and
arbitrary to very object of Resolution dated 28.11.2023. The
Resolution even if presumably contemplates that an applicant
must establish that another similarly situated employee has
already been granted the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme as a
condition precedent for consideration of his or her own claim,
the respondents cannot ignore the fact that the candidate who
qualified against the post of Lecturer in terms with
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
12/13
Advertisement No.92/1998 has been extended the coverage of
Old Pension Scheme since in his/her case, the letter of
appointment has been issued prior to 01.09.2005. Once the
petitioner admittedly satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed
under the Resolution, the respondents were under a legal
obligation to consider her claim on its own merits. The reason
assigned in the impugned order is, therefore, wholly arbitrary,
illegal and extraneous to the governing Resolution and legally
unsustainable.
19. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 25.07.2024
issued under Letter No.14/M07-05/2024-1080 by respondent
No.2 cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed.
20. Respondent No.2, the Director, Higher Education,
Department of Education, Government of Bihar, is directed to
reconsider the petitioner's claim for extension of the benefit of
the Old Pension Scheme strictly in accordance with the
Resolution contained in Memo No.1206(P) dated 28.11.2023
and, upon the petitioner being found eligible, extend all
consequential benefits admissible thereunder.
21. The aforesaid exercise must be completed,
Patna High Court CWJC No.626 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
13/13
preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt or production of a copy of this order.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15-07-2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.