Patna High Court
BiharversusChandra Kishore Sharma
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate court affirmed that once an employee has superannuated and received retirement benefits, the employer‑employee relationship severs and departmental proceedings cannot be validly continued, so the pension termination was illegal.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Mapak appointed in 1987, was terminated in 2000, reinstated after a successful writ, and retired with full pension in 2018. In 2023 the department issued a show‑cause notice alleging his original appointment was illegal and stopped his pension. The Single Judge held that after superannuation the employer‑employee relationship ends, and any action to deprive pension must follow the Bihar Pension Rules, which were not complied with, thus setting aside the termination order and directing restoration of pension. The State appealed, arguing the appointment was illegal and the departmental proceeding was valid. The High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s decision, finding no illegality in the earlier order and dismissing the appeal. Consequently, the petitioner’s pension was restored and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a departmental proceeding can be initiated against a retired employee to stop his pension.
- Whether the authority can terminate pension on the ground of an alleged illegal appointment after superannuation.
- Whether the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 prescribe the only permissible procedure for depriving pension.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pension
- superannuation
- departmental proceeding
- service termination
- natural justice
- letters patent appeal
- Bihar Pension Rules
- show cause notice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1120 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13706 of 2023
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Drainage, Water Resources
Department, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Punpun Flood Protection Division, Anisabad
(Patna).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Chandra Kishore Sharma, son of Late Ramagya Sharma, Resident of
Village-Mahuli (East Parsa Bazar), P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District-Patna.
2. The Accountant General Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Singh (SC to GA -2)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chandra Kishore Sharma (In Person)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 09-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules,
against the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in CWJC No. 13706 of 2023, whereby the writ petition
was allowed, and the appellants were directed to restore the
pension of the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner).
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1120 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
2/9
3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ
petitioner was appointed as a Mapak in the year 1987, and
continued to discharge his duties on the said post. However, in
the year 2000 the writ petitioner was terminated vide Letter No.
2745 dated 11.02.2000 issued by the Director, Land Acquisition
and Rehabilitation, Patna. Aggrieved by the said termination,
the writ petitioner challenged the same before this Hon’ble
Court in CWJC No. 603 of 2001, which was allowed on
16.01.2001, and the termination order was quashed.
4. In the meantime, the appellants issued a second
show cause notice vide Letter No. 971 dated 31.05.2001, which
was again challenged by the writ petitioner in CWJC No. 9031
of 2001. Further, for non-compliance of order passed in CWJC
No. 603 of 2021, the writ petitioner filed MJC No. 2934 of
2001.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition and the
contempt proceedings, the appellant authorities reinstated the
writ petitioner in service with effect from the date of termination
and also sanctioned payment of salary and other consequential
benefits. The appellants claim that such compliance was with a
condition that it would depend on final outcome of CWJC No.
9031 of 2001. Further, in view of such compliance of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1120 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
3/9
Court’s order dated 16.01.2001, the contempt petition was
dismissed.
6. Thereafter, the writ petitioner continued in service
without any interruption and retired on 30.11.2018, after
attaining the age of superannuation. The writ petitioner was also
granted all post-retiral benefits, including full pension and
gratuity vide office order dated 05.10.2018.
7. In CWJC No. 9031 of 2001 and other analogous
cases this High Court had granted status quo vide order dated
22.11.2004, in light of a pending SLP before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The said SLP (SLP 7233-7235/2003 registered
as Civil Appeal No. 5682-5684/2004) was dismissed on
01.07.2006. Further, another Civil Appeal No. 3431 of 2017,
having consequences on the present case was dismissed on
28.11.2022. After this, CWJC No. 9031 of 2001 was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 21.02.2023.
8. Thereafter, on 01.06.2023, the departmental
authorities issued a show cause notice for stopping payment of
pension treating the writ petitioner’s service illegal. The writ
petitioner submitted his reply and a final order was passed on
12.08.2023 withholding his entire pension.
9. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1120 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
4/9
and upon consideration of the materials available on record,
held that once the petitioner had retired, the employer-employee
bond had ended, and the departmental proceeding held
thereafter could not said to be sustainable in the eyes of law. The
relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced as under:
“12. Coming to the impugned order as contained in
Annexure-13, this Court finds that while terminating the
service of the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 did not
even take pain to consider the explanation of the
petitioner and has only given a finding that explanation
submitted by the petitioner is found to be not acceptable
without assigning the reason for non- acceptance. This
Court also finds that the impugned order has been
passed at the behest of or in compliance with the letter
No. 2681 dated 01.06.2023 issued by the Water
Resources Department. Thus, absolutely there is no
independent application of mind, which is sine qua non
while dispensing the services of the petitioner causing
civil as well as evil consequences. Thus, the impugned
order suffers from the vice of the arbitrariness, apart
from complete violation of the principles of natural
justice.
13. The withdrawal of the C.W.J.C. No.9031 of 2001
which was preferred only against the show cause notice
issued by the Department and even if it stood dismissed
as withdrawn, it would how affect the right of the
petitioner to continue in service and getting all the
benefits is quite surprising. In the earlier round of
litigation, the order of termination stood quashed and
duly affirmed by the Division Bench with only
observation to continue the proceeding in accordance
with law. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has
not discharged his service to the satisfaction of the
authorities concerned. Once the service of the petitioner
has been utilized by the Department without there being
any condition and even for the sake of argument it is
taken note of the fact that the order of status quo was
granted by the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9031 of 2001, that
was only with respect to the continuance of the
proceeding based upon a show cause notice subject to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1120 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
5/9
final outcome of S.L.P. No. 7233-7235/2003 which came
to be dismissed on 11.07.2006 in the light of Uma Devi
(supra). The respondent authorities had the liberty to get
the order of status quo modified in the light of the
subsequent development and to proceed further but the
same has not been done and allowed the petitioner to
superannuate. Once the petitioner superannuated and
the reitral benefits and the pension have been accorded;
there is complete severance of the bond of employee and
employer relationship and no cause of action exists for
continuance of the departmental proceeding by the
efflux of time, that too without following any procedure.
14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
impugned order causing termination of the service of the
petitioner as contained in Memo No. 2637 dated
12.08.2023 is held to be wholly unjustified, perverse and
illegal and not sustainable in the law; accordingly the
same stands set aside. The consequential order, as
contained in Memo No. 1567 dated 16.08.2023, issued
by the respondent no. 5, is also hereby set aside. The
respondent authorities are directed to restore the
pension of the petitioner forthwith within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to get
an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.”
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the initial appointment of the writ petitioner in the year 1978
itself was illegal. When the writ petitioner was reinstated in the
service it was done on a condition that it would be subject to the
final outcome of CWJC No. 9031 of 2001. Learned counsel
further submits that in meantime the Hon’ble Court tagged
CWJC No. 9031 of 2001 and other analogous cases with Civil
Appeal No. 3431 of 2017 with a view that it will be affected by
the order /Judgment of the said case.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1120 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
6/9
11. The counsel therefore submits that, by virtue of
order dated 28.11.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3431 of
2017, the writ petitioner has no claim left and his appointment
itself would be considered illegal. As such, the authorities had
correctly exercised their powers and passed the order dated
12.08.2023, and 16.08.2023. Learned counsel further submits
that the writ petitioner withdrew CWJC No. 9031 of 2001, even
after he had knowledge of order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (writ
petitioner) submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly
passed the impugned order after considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case. As such, the order of the
learned Single Judge requires no interference by this court.
Learned counsel further submits that the respondent withdrew
CWJC No. 9031 of 2001, as after his retirement the writ petition
had become infructuous.
13. The limited issue for consideration before us is
that whether the departmental proceeding against the writ
petitioner after his superannuation was justified in the present
facts and circumstances of the case.
14. Upon perusal of materials on record, it is evident
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1120 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
7/9
that the writ petitioner had superannuated from service in the
year 2018 itself. For more than four years the writ petitioner
continued to receive the retiral benefits including pension.
Thereafter, in light of the order dated 28.11.2022, the appellant-
authorities considering the appointment of the writ petitioner
illegal, passed the order of stopping the pension on 12.08.2023.
15. We fail to understand how the authorities could
determine the legality of appointment of the writ petitioner,
almost five years after his superannuation. The writ petitioner
discharged his services satisfactorily till his superannuation, and
no objections have been made in this regard.
16. Also, the writ petitioner continued getting his
retiral benefits for more than four years after his superannuation.
With his superannuation the employer-employee relationship
came to an end, and therefore continuance of departmental
proceeding under Service Rules is not permissible. The
authorities could have initiated action against the writ petitioner
under the Pension Rules, but they have not done so in the
present case. The learned Single Judge has rightly dealt with the
same in the impugned order. The relevant paragraph is
reproduced as under:
“10. …..Once an employee is allowed to superannuate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1120 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
8/9
unconditionally and all the retiral benefits and other
dues have been sanctioned and when the employee is
getting regular pension, the tie between the employer
and employee would automatically severed; in absence
of any pending departmental proceeding. Thus, in the
opinion of this Court, the only remedy which had left
with the State respondent authorities was the procedure
available under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 but the
same has not been done. The termination of the service
of an employee after retirement is unknown to the legal
jurisprudence in absence of any departmental
proceeding on mere show cause notice. Once the
relationship of the employer and employee comes to an
end, there is no question of termination of service of an
employee, that too on the ground that his initial
appointment was bad in law. The delinquent employee
would be deemed to be in service, although he has
reached the age of superannuation, only if a valid
departmental proceeding had been initiated. The
departmental proceeding can not be said to be initiated
merely on issuance of a show-cause notice. It is
initiated only when a charge-sheet is submitted.”
17. As such, we are of the view that the impugned
action of the appellant-authorities was bad in law, and has been
rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. The appellants in
the present case have been unable to substantiate the grounds of
the appeal, and have not dislodged the findings of the learned
Single Judge.
18. The scope of a Letters Patent Appeal is very
limited, and in absence of any cogent reasons the court would
not interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court. It is a well
settled principle that merely because another view is possible,
the court should not interfere with the order of the writ court. In
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1120 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
9/9
the present case, the appellant-authorities have been unable to
show any illegality or perversity in the order of the learned
Single Judge. The impugned action of the authorities after
almost five years of writ petitioner’s superannuation cannot said
to be sustainable in law.
19. In view thereof, this Court finds no illegality or
infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The
order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed, and the
observations and the directions made therein shall follow.
20. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/Sujit
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…