Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AJIT KUMAR
Uday Shankar Prasad, S/o. Late Bishnu Kumar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for pensionary benefits. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. termination of employment was quashed by the court. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. irregular appointment findings without proper process. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. state failed to appeal the favorable judgment. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 5. previous decisions barred the state from re-evaluating pension. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 6. writ petition allowed; pension must be reinstated. (Para 14 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General are present.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-
“For issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to revise/refix and pay all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner such as pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. w.e.f. 01.05.2.022, on the basis of the ACP/MACP, Dearness allowance, annual increments and revised scale of pay in the 5th, 6th and 7h pay revision given to him by office order issued vide memo no. 7474 dated 03.12.2022 under the signature of the superintenent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur. And/or pass such oth
Termination of employment must adhere to principles of natural justice, and decisions affecting rights like pensions cannot be reversed without following due process.
The right to pension is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away without due process, and similarly situated employees must be treated equally under the law.
petitioner has rendered qualifying pensionery service with effect from the date of his initial joining in the department in question, so the same shall be treated as service qualifying for pension an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of pensionary benefits for employees appointed prior to a certain date and subsequently regularized, as well as the requirement to ....
The promotions of the petitioners were in conformity with the Rules of 1989, and the objections raised by the State were not valid.
Petitioners entitled to modified compassionate appointment orders at regular pay scale from initial appointment date, with arrears limited to three years prior to filing date.
The court affirmed that no vested rights arise from erroneous retrospective regularization, and recovery from Class-IV employees for excess payments is impermissible under the law.
Employees appointed on compassionate grounds must receive regular pay-scale benefits from their initial appointment date, despite delays in filing petitions.
Court emphasized equity in treatment of compassionate appointments and limited retroactive benefits to three years from filing date.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
