Patna High Court
Sheo Murat PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner was appointed after the New Pension Scheme came into force and the matter is covered by the earlier decision in Baij Nath Ram v. State of Bihar.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Sub‑Judge who retired in 2016, filed a writ petition seeking to have his pension converted from the New Pension Scheme to the Old Pension Scheme, alleging that his selection was completed before the 2004 cut‑off and that administrative delays prevented his earlier joining. He also sought quashing of an order dated 23‑08‑2024 and payment of full retiral benefits. The State contended that he was appointed after the New Pension Scheme came into force and cited the decision in Baij Nath Ram v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No.11323 of 2021) where similar relief was denied. The Court examined whether the petitioner’s case was distinguishable from that precedent and concluded that it was not, as his appointment occurred after 01‑09‑2005, well after the New Pension Scheme’s commencement. Consequently, the Court held that the relief sought could not be granted and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether a judicial officer appointed after the New Pension Scheme came into force, but whose selection was completed before 01‑01‑2004, is entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.
- Whether the petitioner’s case is distinguishable from the precedent Baij Nath Ram v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No.11323 of 2021).
- Whether the order dated 23‑08‑2024 can be quashed.
- Whether the State can be directed to convert the petitioner’s pension to the Old Pension Scheme and pay gratuity.
Subjects
- Pension Scheme
- Old Pension Scheme
- New Pension Scheme
- Judicial Service
- Appointment Delay
- Writ Petition
- Administrative Law
- Precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.664 of 2025
======================================================
Sheo Murat Prasad S/o Shri Chandu Ram, Vill- Gelwara, Post- Jafarpur,
Tehsil- Sadar, P.S.- Sidhari, Distt.- Azamgarh, State of Uttar Pradesh, Pin-
276001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, 800001.
2. The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, General Administration Department,
Patna-800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Navnit Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-18
======================================================
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. Sheo Murat
Prasad, seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) For quashing the order dated
23.08.2024 bearing letter 07/पे शन-01-04/2024-
सा.प्र-13527 sent to the petitioner on 28-08-2024,
contained in Annexure-P/9 to this writ application
under the seal and signature of Sunil Kumar
Tiwari, under Secretary, General Administration
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
(ii) For, directing the respondents to
restrain them from illegal and unauthorized
withholding of pension of the petitioner in old
pension scheme without any proper reason and
Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
2/8
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 retiral benefits including gratuity 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 other
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.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
3/8
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 Sasaram. 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 Sub-Judge, Saharsa on
31.08.2016.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
4/8
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.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
5/8
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 his joining was delayed
Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
6/8
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 also been stated
that an identical issue was raised in the case of Baij Nath Ram
vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 11323 of 2021,
and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition
vide order dated 21.02.2023.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents
emphatically contended, placing reliance upon the said decision
(annexed as Annexure–R/A to the counter affidavit), that since
in an identical matter, this Court has declined to grant relief, no
relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
7/8
argued that the case of the petitioner is not completely identical
to C.W.J.C. No. 11323 of 2021. It is stated in the rejoinder
affidavit that the petitioner has not withdrawn any amount
deposited under the New Pension Scheme and has not obtained
any retiral benefits thereunder.
15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we
find that there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed
after 01.09.2005, which is admittedly after the New Pension
Scheme was introduced. The petitioner has already been
superannuated on 31.08.2016 and has been governed by the
New Pension Scheme since his appointment. Upon perusal of
the order relied upon by learned counsel for the State, we are of
the view that the petitioner having joined his service after the
New Pension Scheme came into force, the issue stands covered
by the judgment of the Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 11323
of 2021. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the present case is distinguishable from C.W.J.C.
No. 11323 of 2021 cannot be accepted.
16. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of
the considered opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner
cannot be granted.
17. The writ petition is devoid of merit, particularly
Patna High Court CWJC No.664 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
8/8
in view of the fact that in the earlier case also the concerned
petitioner had been appointed pursuant to the 24th Judicial
Service Examination and his appointment was notified after
01.09.2005, by which time the New Pension Scheme had
already came into force. The issue, therefore, stands squarely
covered by the said decision.
18. 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
Checking your session…