Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Lal JhaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The impugned orders declaring the appointment illegal and stopping the pension are set aside, and the widow's pension benefits are to be restored.

Summary

The petitioner, a widow of a deceased lecturer, challenged a 2023 memo that declared her late husband's appointment illegal and consequently stopped her family pension. The petitioner sought quashing of that memo and the subsequent order halting pension payments. The court noted that the same appointment had been regularized in 2016 and that a prior judgment (CWJC No. 9131 of 2022) had already set aside similar orders for identically situated persons. Since the earlier decision was binding and the respondents had not shown any distinction, the court found no merit in maintaining the impugned orders. Accordingly, the court set aside both the 2023 memo and the pension stoppage order and directed the respondents to restore all pension benefits and arrears within eight weeks.

Issues considered

  • Whether the appointment of the deceased employee was illegal for not being made against a vacant sanctioned post and for not following the due selection process.
  • Whether the earlier judgment in CWJC No. 9131 of 2022 setting aside similar orders is applicable to the present petition.
  • Whether the respondents can lawfully discontinue the widow's family pension and related benefits.

Subjects

  • pension
  • family pension
  • superannuation
  • appointment irregularities
  • selection process
  • writ petition
  • quashing order
  • precedent
  • administrative law

Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8243 of 2024
     ======================================================
     Lal Jha W/o Late Birendra Nath @ Birendra Nath Jha, Resident of- Near
     D.A.V. School, 103, Madhukans, Plot No. 133/134, Sec-10, New Panvel,
     Panvel Raigad, Maharashtra.

                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Education
     Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.   Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
4.   The Vice- Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.
5.   The Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.
6.   The Finance Officer, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.
7.   The Principal, B.M. College, Rahika, District- Madhubani.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Adv.
     For the State          :      Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-9
                                   Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG-9
     For the L.N.M.U.       :      Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Adv.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 27-01-2026

                    Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned Advocate

      for the petitioner, Mr. S.D. Yadav, learned Advocate for the State

      and Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, learned Advocate for the L.N.

      Mithila, University.

                    2. A very sorry state of affairs has been placed before

      this Court. The petitioner, who is a hapless widow of erstwhile

      employee, namely, Birendra Nath @ Birendra Nath Jha, has

      approached this Court seeking quashing of the Memo no.594
Patna High Court CWJC No.8243 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
                                           2/5




         dated 20.02.2023 issued under the signature of respondent no.3,

         whereby the appointment of the husband of the petitioner along

         with some others has been held illegal. The petitioner also

         sought quashing of the consequential order contained in Memo

         no.SC/48/23 dated 22.02.2023 issued by the respondent no.5,

         whereby the payment of pension and other benefits have been

         stopped in view of the afore-noted letters.

                     3. Brief facts as required for adjudication of the

         matter, are as follows:-

                     4. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner was

         appointed against the second post of Lecturer in the year 1978,

         to be more specific on 30.11.1978, in the Department of

         Philosophy, Bharti Mandal College, Rahika, Madhubani, on the

         recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by the

         Governing Body of the College. Later on, based upon the

         recommendation of Three Men Committee, his service was

         regularized by the order of Hon’ble Chancellor under Memo

         No.3652-61/62 dated 26.09.2016 after due approval of the

         Syndicate. The husband of the petitioner, after serving more

         than 25 years, came to be superannuated on 31.07.2003 and has

         been allowed pension and other benefits. Unfortunately, the

         petitioner’s husband died on 10.10.2014 and thereafter the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8243 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
                                           3/5




         petitioner has been getting family pension uninterruptedly. All

         of a sudden, after two decades of the retirement of erstwhile

         employee, the respondent no.3 came up with the impugned

         order as contained in Memo no.594 dated 20.02.2023, whereby

         it is said that the appointment of the petitioner’s husband along

         with other 16 persons were not made against the vacant and

         sanctioned posts by following the due selection process and

         their cases are not in terms with paragraph-44 of the

         Constitution Bench of the Apex Court rendered in the case of

         Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors.

         [2006 (4) SCC 1].

                     5. The afore-noted impugned order was also put to

         question by some of the identically situated persons in CWJC

         No. 9131 of 2022 along with another analogus case. Both the

         writ petitions were heard by this Court and finally the impugned

         order came to be set aside vide order dated 12.01.2024, so far as

         it relates to the petitioners of the said cases.

                     6. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no.1 to

         3 has been filed on 08.07.2024. But this Court is appalled to see

         that there is no discussion with respect to the order passed by

         this Court dated 12.01.2024 in CWJC No. 9131 of 2022,

         whereby the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 has already been
Patna High Court CWJC No.8243 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
                                           4/5




         set aside with respect to other identically situated persons. The

         counter affidavit has been filed in support of the impugned order

         contained in Memo no. 594 dated 20.02.2023 on the identical

         grounds that the very appointment of the petitioner’s husband

         was not made against the sanctioned post and without following

         the due selection process and thus her regularization as well as

         her appointment was bad. It has further been stated in para-19

         that the order passed in CWJC No. 9131 of 2022 and analogous

         case is not applicable in the present writ petition. However, the

         respondent(s) has not clarified as to why the same is not

         applicable when the case of the petitioner is exactly similar to

         those in whose favour the order has been passed and the

         impugned order has been set aside.

                     7. This Court has also been apprised that the

         Committee consisting of five senior officers, headed by the

         Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar, has also taken a decision

         to ensure the compliance of the order of this Court passed in

         CWJC No. 9131 of 2022 along with another analogus case and

         the consequential benefits have been accorded accordingly to

         the petitioners of the said writ petition(s).

                     8. Having considered the submissions advanced by

         the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the
             Patna High Court CWJC No.8243 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
                                                        5/5




                      impugned order contained in Memo no.594 dated 20.02.2023

                      issued under the signature of the respondent no.3 as well as the

                      consequential orders have already been set aside with respect to

                      the identically situated persons, there is no need for further

                      adjudication of the matter. No such order would sustain against

                      an employee who had already been superannuated two decades

                      ago and died nine years before the impugned order is passed.

                      Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in Memo no.594

                      dated 20.02.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 as well as

                      Memo no. SC/48/23 dated 22.02.2023 passed by the respondent

                      no.5, are hereby set aside.

                                  9. The respondents are directed to extend all the

                      consequential benefits, including the arrears of pension to the

                      petitioner forthwith, in any case within eight weeks.

                                  10. The writ petition stands allowed.




                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          29-01-2026
Transmission Date


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.