Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ,. NANI TAGIA, J.
The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna - Appellants
Versus
Dileep Kumar S/o Late Mahesh Prasad Singh - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.211 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13092 of 2024
Decided On : 02-02-2026
Patna High Court Rules, 1916 – Appendix E – Clause 10 – Letters Patent Appeal – Scope – A Letter Patent Appeal is normally an intra Court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench sitting as a Court of correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of same jurisdiction as was in the Single Judge – In appellate jurisdiction, the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of error – The Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal should not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge of the Court unless it is shown to be based on no evidence, perverse, palpably unreasonable or inconsistent with any particular position of law, the scope of interference is within a narrow compass. (Para 14.1)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for claimant's eligibility for pension (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments against single judge's ruling (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's observation on appellate jurisdiction (Para 14 , 15) |
| 4. final determination of the appeal's outcome (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ.
The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar challenging the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13092 of 2024.
2. It appears that the Respondent No. 1, Dileep Kumar filed the writ petition seeking for following reliefs:
“...i. Issuance of a writ, writ(s), order order(s) commanding the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of old pension scheme and government provident fund to the petitioner instead of contributory pension scheme and contributory provident fund under the new pension scheme, treating the petitioner to be appointed in government service before 01.09.2005.
ii. Issuance of a writ, writ(s), order, order(s) commanding the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner to have been appointed prior to 01.09.2005 e.i. appointed on 24.02.2005 for the purposes of application of the service condition in regard to old pension scheme and government provident fund.
iii. For issuance of a writ, writ(s), order, order(s) commanding the respondent authorities to pay all the consequential benefits under old pension scheme and government provident fund to the petitioner.
iv. Issuance of any other writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court...”
3. In the writ petition, it is specifically stated that the father of the petitioner was posted as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Rasalpur, Fathua, Patna and he died in harness on 05.02.2004 and after the death of his father, the petitioner filed an application before the District Superintendent of Education, Patna for his appointment on compassionate ground and the District Superintendent of Education, Patna vide letter No. 2849 dated 17.08.2004 sent the recommendation for compassionate appointment before the District Compassionate Committee, Patna which was considered by the District Compassionate Committee and the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment on the post of clerk Grade-III.
4. On the basis of such decision taken by the District Compassionate Committee on 25.09.2004, the District Superintendent of Education, Patna recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of clerk Grade-III to the Regional Deputy Director, Patna vide letter dated 24.02.2005.
5. After the lapse of two years, the respondent authorities issued the appointment letter which is dated 01.02.2007 to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the post of clerk in pursuance of such order dated 01.02.2007 and is continuing to discharge his duties. According to the writ petitioner, the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the appointment letter two years of recommendation, was arbitrary for which the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer the latches.
6. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the State Government took a decision that from 01.09.2005 any person appointed in the Government service will not be entitled to the existing policy of pension being paid to them under the Bihar Pension Rules and they would be governed by new Contributory Pension Scheme framed by the Government.
7. Since the petitioner was appointed by notification dated 01.02.2007, he was not given the benefit of the pension under Old Policy and Scheme governed by Bihar Pension Rules and he was to accept the new policy of the Contributory Pension Scheme which is less beneficial in comparison to the earlier pension scheme.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that in identical cases, since there was latches on the part of the authorities and the persons who filed the writ petitions were also appointed after 01.09.2005 and, therefore, dep
Employees appointed before the pension scheme cutoff date may opt for the old pension scheme despite formal appointments occurring later.
Delay in appointment due to departmental inaction justifies treating the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme, despite the New Pension Scheme coming into effect.
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
