Patna High Court
Kuwar Munni Devi @ Munni Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 18 April, 2026
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17271 of 2023
======================================================
Pawan Kumar Jha Son of Late Batuk Nath Jha, Resident of Village- Bhithha
Bhagwanpur, Police Station- Madhepur, District- Madhubani. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Health, Laheria Sarai, Darbhanga.
6. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani.
7. The Senior Treasury Officer, Madhubani.
8. The In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Madhepur,
Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16069 of 2023
======================================================
Raj Narayan Poddar S/o Late Sukhdeo Poddar, resident of Village-Somnaha,
P.S. Chakmahishi, District-Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director in Chief, Health Service, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Additional Director, Health Services, Darbhanga Division,
Darbhanga.
4. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani.
5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Babubarhi,
Madhubani.
6. The Treasury Officer, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16670 of 2023
======================================================
Kuwar Munni Devi @ Munni Devi Wife of Late Laxmi Narayan Singh,
resident of village and P.O. - Nariyar, P.S. - Kanti, Dist. - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
2/134
2. The Director in Chief (Disease Control Public Health Para Medical), Health
Services, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Additional Director, Health Services, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur.
4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur.
5. The In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kanti, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16761 of 2023
======================================================
Arvind Kumar S/o Late Bechan Ram, Resident of village and P.S.- Chandi,
District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director in Chief (Disease Control Public Health and Para Medical)
Health Service, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Jamui.
4. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sikandra, Jamui.
5. The Treasury Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17963 of 2023
======================================================
Shail Devi W/o Late Harishchandra Prasad Resident of Village-Pakri
Basharat, P.S.-Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur. .. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director in Chief (Disease Control Public Health and Para Medical)
Health Service, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Incharge Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Sahebganj,
Muzaffarpur.
5. The Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18408 of 2023
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
3/134
======================================================
Akhileshwar Prasad S/o Late Ramswrup Lal Deo, Resident of village
Ufardaha, P.S.- Bahera, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director in Chief, Health Service, Government Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Additional Director, Health Services, Darbhanga Division,
Darbhanga.
4. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani.
5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Laukahi, Madhubani.
6. The Treasury Officer, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 351 of 2024
======================================================
Satyadeo Singh Son of Late Janardan Singh Resident of Village Banduar, P.S.
Nima Chandpur, District Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Health, Governemnt of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director in Chief, (Rogniyantran Lok Swasthya Para Medical Health
Services, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Regional Additional Director Health Services, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur.
5. The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Incharge Medical Asistant Primary Health Center Kanti, Muzaffarpur.
7. The District Accountant Officer, Muzaffarpur.
8. The District Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur.
9. The District Treasury Officer, Begusarai.
10. The Accountant General of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17271 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha,
Mr. Keshav Kumar Jha,
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar ( GP 4 )
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16069 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shiv Kumar
Ms. Sweta Burnwal, Advocates
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
4/134
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rajeshwar Singh ( GA 10 )
Mr. Pramendra Kumar Singh, AC to GA-10
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16670 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binod Kumar Yadav ( SC 18 )
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16761 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shiv Kumar
Ms. Sweta Burnwal, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar (SC12)
Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC-12
For Accountant General Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17963 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shiv Kumar
Ms. Sweta Burnwal, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel 11
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18408 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shiv Kumar
Ms. Sweta Burnwal, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar (SC12)
Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC-12
For Accountant General Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17963 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shiv Kumar
Ms. Sweta Burnwal, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Government Advocate
Mr. Neeraj Raj, AC to GA-8
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 351 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sabal Kumar Jha, Adv.
For Accountant General : Mr. Ram Kinker Choubey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to Govt. Advocate (11)
Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, AC to GA-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
CAV ORDER/ JUDGMENT
18-04-2026 Heard Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Mr. Shiv Kumar,
Mr. Sunil Kumar and Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, learned counsel for
the petitioners in the above writ petitions and Sri Manish
Kumar, Government Pleader-4 duly assisted by other learned
counsel for the Respondent-State and as also Sri Ram Kinker
Choubey, learned counsel for the representing the office of
Accountant General, Patna, Bihar.
2. All the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed
by the persons who were initially appointed as Basic Health
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
5/134
Workers on different dates and years and they continued in
service till the date of their retirement/superannuation and were
allowed pension and pensionary benefits, which was abruptly
stopped by the State Authorities citing common reasons
referring to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Bihar & Ors v. Devendra Sharma as reported
in (2020) 15 SCC 466 and State of Bihar & Ors v. Kirti
Narayan Prasad as reported in (2019) 13 SCC 250.
3. Through bench slips filed on various dates, all
these matters were directed to be listed together and
accordingly, all the parties were finally heard at length and upon
conclusion of hearing, judgment was reserved, which is being
adjudicated in the following manner.
4. Since entire pleadings have been filed in the
writ petition being CWJC No. 17271 of 2023, so this case is
required to be treated as a lead case, and accordingly, for the
purpose of adjudication, this case is being taken up as a first
case
5. The relief sought for in CWJC No. 17271 of
2023 is as follows:-
"i) For quashing the order
contained in Memo No. 424 Madhepura
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
6/134
dated 29.09.2023 issued under the signature
of the Respondent No.8 i.e. the In-charge
Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre,
Madhepur (Madhubani) by which a letter
was written to the respondent no.7 i.e. the
Senior Treasury Officer, Madhubani
whereby pension of the petitioner bearing
P.P.O. No. 202311041653P0, G.P.O. No.
202311041653 GO & C.P.O. No.
202311041653C0 has been stopped which is
illegal because the petitioner has retired
from his respective service on 28.02.2023
and his case is not covered by the order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
ii) For directing the
respondent authorities to withdraw the letter
contained in Memo No. 424 Madhepur
(Madhubani) dated 29.09.2023 on the
ground that the case of the petitioner is not
covered by the order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court as stated in the Memo issued by the
respondent no.8.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
7/134
iii) For directing the
respondent authorities to consider the case
of the petitioner that the petitioner was
appointed on 26.09.1982 on the post of
Basic Health Worker by the then Civil
Surgeon, Darbhanga, continued in service
for a long periods and after termination this
Hon'ble Court allowed his writ application
in the light of C.W.J.C. No. 6078 of 2009
(Hemchandra Jha Versus The State of Bihar
& others), reinstated the petitioner in his
respective service and now the petitioner has
retired from his respective service on
28.02.2023
.
iv) For directing the
respondent authority to make payment of
“Mandey” for the period from 01.03.2023 to
29.09.2023 on the ground that the petitioner
after retirement was engaged on contract
and thereafter discharged his duty till
29.09.2023.
v) For all consequential
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
8/134
reliefs to which the petitioner is found
entitled in course of hearing of this writ
application.
6. During pendency of the writ petition and upon
query being made from the State Counsel as to what action has
been taken pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in the case of the petitioner, namely, Pawan Kumar Jha
(CWJC No. 17271/2023) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 292 of
2014, it was apprised that the authorities are said to have passed
an order, which is contained in Memo No. 4/vidhi-08-334/23
390(4b) dated 29.10.2025, and the petitioner proposed to
challenge the same by filing an appropriate Interlocutory
Application, vide Interlocutory Application No. 02/2026 and
accordingly additional relief was incorporated as relief no. VI to
the main relief portion, which is being taken up together for
adjudication as relief no. VI which is as follows:-
“(vi) For quashing the order
contained in Memo No. 4/vidhi-08-334/23
390(4b) dated 29.10.2025 issued under the
signature of the Respondent No.4 i.e. the
Director in Chief, Health Service,
Government of Bihar, Patna whereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
9/134representation submitted by the petitioner on
20.12.2021 in compliance of order of
Hon’ble Division bench by this Hon’ble court
in LPA No.292 of 2014 dated 06.12.2021 has
been rejected which is completely arbitrary,
illegal and not justified in the eye of law.”
7. It is relevant to mention here that insofar as
the challenge made by the petitioner vide Interlocutory
Application No. 01/2024, with regard to recovery, which was
being coerced by the respondents, has been stayed vide order of
this Court dated 01.03.2024, as such the issues of recovery is
required to be addressed in respect of its validity.
Written arguments/oral submissions of the
petitioner in CWJC No. 17271 of 2023.
8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Basic
Health Worker (Class-III) on 26.09.1982, vide Memo No. 71
(Annexure P/1). The said appointment was made by the then
Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga,
following all prescribed procedures, who was the competent
authority to appoint him as class-III employee. The petitioner
was transferred from the District of Darbhanga by the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
10/134
R.D.D, Health services Darbhanga vide Memo No. 813 dated
18.12.1982, he thereafter joined the office of Primary Health
Centre, Madhepur, Madhubani on 21.12.1982. After serving for
ten years with dedication, the petitioner was granted his first
time-bound promotion on December 11, 1992, vide Memo No.
3031, issued by the then Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical
Officer, Madhubani. However, in the year 2001, a show cause
notice was asked by the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani and after
receiving the same, reply was submitted to the show cause
within time. It was categorically stated in the reply that in 1982
he was appointed by the then Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical
Officer, Darbhanga after following due procedure. The
petitioner was discharging his duty in the office of P.H.C.
Madhepur, but in the meantime, his salary was abruptly stopped,
prompting him to file C.W.J.C. No. 12014 of 2002, in which,
the Court directed the authorities to release his salary. It is
further submitted that the petitioner was discharging his duty
with full dedication and honesty in the office of Primary Health
Office, Madhepur, despite this, while the case was still pending,
the respondent authorities issued a termination letter vide Memo
No. 3077 on 28.12.2002, without providing a proper opportunity
to be heard, which was a clear violation of the principles of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
11/134
natural justice.
9. It is next submitted by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner subsequently engaged in a long
series of litigation’s to reclaim his service. He first filed
C.W.J.C. No. 4453 of 2003 against termination order, which was
allowed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench on 08.09.2003 along
with other 292 analogous matters (reported in 2003(4) PLJR
282). Although the State preferred L.P.A. No. 1093 of 2003
against CWJC No. 4453 of 2003, it was disposed of on
15.05.2008, in the light of order passed in the case of State of
Bihar & Others v. Purendra Solankit [2006 Vol (3) PLJR 286],
with the directions to consider the petitioner’s representation.
When no order was passed by the Respondent/Health
Department, the petitioner again filed C.W.J.C. No. 15687 of
2009 for reinstatement on the ground that the petitioner has
discharged his duty for more than 20 years.
10. On 03.03.2011, this Hon’ble Court allowed
the writ in light of order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6078 of 2009
(Hemchandra Jha vs. State of Bihar), setting aside the “forged
appointee” label and ordering reinstatement and directing the
respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioners in
accordance with law. These orders are annexed as Annexure P/2
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
12/134
and P/3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the case of
Hemchandra Jha (supra), the appointment was done in the
year 1982 on the post of Class-III and the appointing authority
was same, the then Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical officer,
Darbhanga. Hence, the present petition is similar to the case of
Hemchandra Jha. In the case of Hemchandra Jha, an appeal
was preferred by the state government bearing L.PA. No. 1207
of 2010, and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the
appeal on 28.06.2011 (Annexure P/4). It is submitted by the
learned counsel that, it clearly shows that the order passed in the
case of Hemchandra Jha was affirmed, and the case of the
petitioner is completely different from the case mentioned in the
present order dated 06.12.2021 passed in LPA No. 292 of 2014
in which case of the State of Bihar & Others v. Devendra
Sharma [ reported in 2020 (15) SCC 466] has been referred.
11. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel
that the petitioner’s case is fully covered with Hemchandra Jha
(supra) in which appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench though the petitioner raised all these points in
his representation but same was not considered. It is further
submitted that after passing order dated 03.03.2011 in CWJC
No. 15687 of 2009, the petitioner submitted his joining before
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
13/134
the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani, but his joining was not accepted
and as a result, a contempt petition (M.J.C. No. 3268 of 2011),
was filed, during the pendency of the MJC, a show cause was
filed by the then Civil Surgeon, Madhubani and by way of filing
show cause, reinstatement order was brought before the Hon’ble
Court. It would be evident from bare perusal of Memo No. 2769
Madhubani dated 01.10.2012 issued under the signature of Civil
Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, termination
letter 3077 dated 28.12.2002 was cancelled and the petitioner
was directed to join the post on which the petitioner was
working, it was also stated that while issuing letter as contained
in memo no. 2769/ Madhubani dated 01.10.2012, consent of the
then Principal Secretary of the Department was also taken and
since then, the petitioner has worked in his respective service
without any break till his retirement i.e., 28.02.2023. Then the
petitioner was finally reinstated on 01.10.2012, vide Memo No.
2769 (Annexure P/5), which cancelled the original order of
termination passed in the year 2002 on 28.12.2022.
12. However, after lapse of three years LPA No.
292 of 2014 was preferred by the State of Bihar and on
06.12.2021 the appeal was disposed of with certain
observations/directions to the respondents (Annexure P/6). After
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
14/134
disposal of the said appeal, the petitioner submitted a detailed
representation on 20.12.2021 before the respondent No.4 i.e.,
the Director-in-Chief, Health Service, Bihar, Patna (Annexure
P/7) stating all facts in representation supported by relevant
documents but without considering the facts of case of the
petitioner a general letter was issued under the signature of the
respondent no.4 and further the impugned order was issued
stopping pension of the petitioner, which is completely illegal in
the eye of law. Following his reinstatement, the petitioner served
continuously without any break until his retirement on
28.02.2023. Upon retirement, he received all retiral benefits,
including G.P.F., Gratuity, and Group Insurance, and his regular
pension was fixed under P.P.O. No. 202311041653P0. Due to
his dedicated service, the petitioner was even engaged on a
contractual basis through Memo No. 594 dated 25.02.2023, at
the Primary Health Centre, Madhepur, Madhubani (Annexure
P/8).
13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further
submits that despite the petitioner’s long service and when the
petitioner was discharging his duty on contractual service, the
respondent No. 8, issued a show-cause notice on 29.09.2023,
giving him only 24 hours to reply. On that very same day,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
15/134
Memo No. 424 was issued by the respondent no.8 which was
sent to the respondent no.7 i.e., the Senior Treasury Officer,
Madhubani, (Annexure P/10) to illegally stop the petitioner’s
pension. The State had previously preferred L.P.A. No. 292 of
2014, which was disposed of on 06.12.2021, directing the
authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for which the
petitioner submitted a detailed representation on December 20,
2021, explaining that his case was actually similar to the
Hemchandra Jha case (affirmed in L.P.A. No. 1207 of 2010,
Annexure P/4), rather than being covered by the Devendra
Sharma (supra) case. However, after retirement, pension of the
petitioner has been stopped by the respondents which is illegal
and thus, the same is fit to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. It
would be evident from a bare perusal of order dated 06.12.2021,
the Hon’ble Court has directed the respondents to consider the
representation of the employee/writ petitioner but in the case of
this petitioner, same was not considered by the respondents.
14. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the order passed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench comprising of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice S. Kumar in L.P.A. No. 292 of 2014, [the State of Bihar
& others Vs. Pawan Kumar Jha], wherein the Hon’ble Division
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
16/134
Bench has disposed of this appeal and directed the authority to
consider the case in the light of ratio laid down in Devendra
Sharma (supra) but the case of the petitioner is not covered by
the case of Devendra Sharma because the case of Devendra
Sharma arises from C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 (Om Prakash
& others Vs. The State of Bihar & others), which may be
verified by the facts. In C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 and other
analogous cases consisting of 319 cases, the order was passed
on 06.10.2009 by this Hon’ble Division Bench but, so far, the
case of the petitioner is concerned, same was allowed in the
light of order passed in Hemchandra Jha Vs. the State of
Bihar & others C.W.J.C No. 6078 of 2009. Later on, the order
of learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in
LPA No. 1207 of 2010.
Entitlement of Renumeration as against
Engagement on contractual basis after superannuation of
the petitioner
15. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was
engaged on contract on 01.03.2023 after his superannuation, the
petitioner has not been paid his ‘Mandey/remuneration’ as it was
purely a contractual engagement made by the respondent
authority, thus the petitioner is entitled for his Mandey/
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
17/134
remuneration w.e.f. 01.03.2023 to 29.09.2023. Further,
L.P.A. No. 292 of 2014 was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court
wherein, it was a clear cut direction that the petitioner will raise
his points for consideration before the respondent authorities but
in the case of petitioner nothing was considered by the
respondent which is an apparent violation of the order passed by
this Hon’ble Court in L.P.A. No. 292 of 2014.
Submissions On Behalf Of Respondent No. 6/the Civil
Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani And 8/the In-
charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Madhepur,
Madhubani
16. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that
the petitioner’s initial appointment was illegal as the
appointment letter of the petitioner has been found forged by a
five-member committee constituted to inquire into the matter.
(Factually, Two members of the Committee did not participate
in the proceedings nor signed the report but remaining three
members submitted its report and this fact was not disclosed in
the submissions of respondents). The post of Basic Health
Workers is a technical post and the petitioner is not having the
required qualification for appointment on the post of Basic
Health Worker i.e. Training of Basic Health Worker and this fact
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
18/134
also clearly shows that the appointment of the petitioner is
illegal. Following the directions of this Hon’ble Court in the
Purendra Sulankit case, a Five-Man Enquiry Committee was
constituted to investigate such appointments, and in its report,
the petitioner was specifically identified at Serial No. 56
showing that the appointment letter was forged as the same has
not been issued by the office concerned (Annexure R-6/1). It is
submitted that many persons like the petitioner has questioned
the termination on the basis of the report of the Five Member
Committee and some of the persons had questioned the very
validity of the report of the Five Member Committee as is
evident from para-17 of the Judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8649
of 2018 (Annexure-R/2), but the Hon’ble Court had held that
the State Committee on appreciation of the materials on record
has opined that appointment was illegal and void ab initio and
thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it did not find any ground
to disagree with the findings of the State Committee i.e. the Five
Member Committee, which has found the appointment letter of
the petitioner forged i.e. appointment to be illegal (Annexure-R-
6/1 to the counter affidavit).
17. The Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
19/134
submits that similarly the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered
cases of many persons like petitioner, whose appointment was
found illegal by the Five Men Committee in case bearing Civil
Appeal No.7879 of 2019 and its analogous cases, which were
disposed of vide Judgment dated 17.10.2019 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and here also the Hon’ble Court
allowed the Appeal filed by the State Government relying the
report of the Five Men Inquiry Committee. Therefore, in the
aforementioned circumstances, it is submitted that the report of
the Five Men Committee has attained finality in the light of
order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the petitioner’s
appointment has also been found illegal by this committee as
stated above. In para-36 of the Judgment dated 17.10.2019
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.7879 of 2019 (Annexure-R-6/3 to the counter affidavit), it
has been clarified that no statutory entitlement for salary or
consequential right of pension and other monetary benefits can
arise, if the very appointment is found illegal.
18. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that
in the aforementioned circumstances, since the very
appointment of the petitioner and similarly situated persons are
illegal, they including the petitioner have no right to get any
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
20/134
benefit out of illegal appointment and thus, the petitioner and
similarly situated persons are not entitled for pension hence the
Department of Health issued letters bearing No.1008(4) dated
11.07.2023 and 1446(12) dated 25.09.2023 directing all the
concerned authorities to remove such illegally appointed
persons from service/stop pension of such illegally appointed
persons and due to delay in giving information regarding
stoppage of pension, show cause notice has also been issued
vide letter No.1481(12) dated 03.10.2023.
Rejoinder Of The Petitioner In Reply Of Counter Affidavit
Of Respondent No. 6 And 8
19. In response to the respondents, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner submits that he and another employee,
Manikant Jha, jointly moved the Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.
15687 of 2009 challenging the five-men enquiry committee
report dated June 29, 2007. In that report, the petitioner was
listed at Serial No. 56 while Manikant Jha at Serial No. 57.
Their writ application was allowed on 03.03.2011, in light of the
judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 6078 of 2009 (Hemchandra Jha
case). Following a contempt petition (M.J.C. No. 3268 of 2011),
the petitioner and Manikant Jha were reinstated into service on
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
21/134
01.10.2012, vide Memo No. 2769 (Annexure: P/5 to the main
writ application), for a kind perusal a copy of writ petition of
C.W.J.C. No. 15687 of 2009 filed by petitioner along with one
Manikant Jha before this Hon’ble Court is appended with record
as (Annexure P/14)
20. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
highlights that while the petitioner is being harassed following
his retirement on 28.02.2023, Manikant Jha, who was listed
immediately after the petitioner in the same enquiry report
continued to work at the Primary Health Centre, Khutauna,
under Respondent No. 6. The petitioner served continuously
after his reinstatement in the year 2012, until his
superannuation, was paid all retiral dues, and had his pension
fixed. However, during the pendency of the present litigation,
the authorities issued Memo No. 183 dated
05.02.2024(Annexure P/14), ordering the recovery of the entire
amount of retiral dues previously paid to him.
21. It is further stand of the petitioner that the case of
the petitioner is not covered by judgment passed in Devendra
Sharma (supra). In L.P.A. No. 292 of 2014 (Annexure P/6), the
Hon’ble Division Bench directed the authorities to factually
verify, in view of principle enumerated in the said documents,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
22/134
and to pass a reasoned order. The petitioner submitted a timely
representation explaining that his case is fully covered by the
Hemchandra Jha judgment, as he was appointed in the year
1982 by the same competent authority. Consequently, the
petitioner submits that the departmental letters and orders
stopping his pension and demanding recovery are inapplicable
to his case and should be set aside, as his reinstatement was
previously upheld by this Hon’ble Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 4/ the
Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna
22. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the
petitioner’s case is a matter of illegal and forged appointment
made by the regional authorities of the Health Department in an
arbitrary manner, ignoring the constitutional mandates required
for public appointments. The petitioner’s service as a Basic
Health Worker was originally terminated on December 28,
2002, vide Letter No. 3077 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-
Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, due to illegal nature of the
appointment. Following the directions of this Hon’ble Court in
L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 (Purendra Solankit vs. The State of
Bihar) and the landmark Uma Devi’s judgment, the State
constituted a High-Level Five-Men Committee to scrutinize
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
23/134
such appointments. Upon detailed examination, the Committee
categorized the petitioner’s appointment as “forged,” listing him
at Serial No. 56 of the enquiry report. A copy of the relevant
page of this report is annexed to the counter-affidavit as
Annexure-R-4/1.
23. Counsel for the respondents further submits that
while the petitioner previously succeeded in C.W.J.C. No.
15687 of 2009 (disposed of on March 3, 2011, in light of the
Hemchandra Jha case), the State challenged this order through
L.P.A. No. 292 of 2014. This litigation was part of a broader
series of appeals concerning appointments labelled as “forged”
or “illegal” by the State Committee. Although some early
Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) were dismissed, the Hon’ble
Division Bench, later allowed several LPAs in favour of the
State on September 24, 2014, in batch cases like L.P.A. No. 200
of 2010 (State of Bihar vs. Madhu Kumari) and L.P.A. No. 566
of 2010 (State of Bihar vs. Om Prakash). In those instances, the
Court set aside previous orders that had allowed the writ
petitions of such appointees.
24. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further
submits that the petitioner seeks the quashing of Memo No. 424
Madhepur dated 29.09.2023, which stopped his pensionary
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
24/134
benefits (P.P.O. No. 202311041653P0) following his retirement
on 28.02.2023. The petitioner contends that his appointment as a
Basic Health Worker on 26.09.1982 was valid and that his case
is not covered by the restrictive mandates of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court regarding illegal appointments. However, the
respondent maintains that the petitioner’s entire service history
is predicated on a forged appointment, rendering him ineligible
for any post-retiral benefits.
25. Counsel for the Respondents elaborates the factual
matrix of the present case that the petitioner was purportedly
appointed as a Basic Health Worker on a temporary basis under
the Madhepur Surgency vide Memo No. 71(mu) dated
26.09.1982 by the then Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical
Officer, Madhepur as mentioned in Para 9 of the 2 nd
supplementary counter affidavit. He was subsequently
transferred to the Madhubani Surgency under the Primary
Health Centre, Madhepur, vide Memo No. 2823 dated
09.12.1982. The respondents asserts that these initial actions
were performed in an arbitrary manner, completely bypassing
the constitutional mandates required for government
employment. When the widespread issue of forged and illegal
appointments in the Health Department came to light, a show-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
25/134
cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No. 2402
dated 17.10.2001 (Annexure R-4/8), to which he replied on
31.10.2001 (Annexure R-4/9) but failed to provide any evidence
of a valid, constitutionally-compliant appointment.
26. Counsel for the Respondents further submits that
during the verification process when the Civil Surgeon,
Darbhanga, informed the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani, vide Letter
No. 3944 dated 19.12.2002 (Annexure R-4/10) that there was no
record of the petitioner’s appointment in their office. The letter
explicitly stated that neither the appointment letter nor the
issuance register contained any entry for the petitioner,
confirming the appointment as non-existent in official records.
Consequently, the petitioner’s service was terminated by the
Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, through
Letter No. 3077 dated 28.12.2002 on the grounds of being a
forged and illegal appointment. This dismissal was part of a
broader administrative action against several similarly situated
individuals, whose appointments were found to be fraudulent.
27. Counsel for the Respondents highlights the
litigation history of this matter which involves several rounds of
scrutiny by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Following
the directions in LPA No. 946 of 2003 (The State of Bihar &
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
26/134
Ors. vs. Purnendra Solanki), a five men committee was
constituted by the Health Department to scrutinize the validity
of appointments in light of the Secretary, State of Karnataka
vs. Umadevi judgment. The committee’s report (Annexure R-
4/1) specifically identified the petitioner’s appointment as
“forged” at Serial No. 56. Although, the petitioner previously
sought relief citing C.W.J.C. No. 6078 of 2009 (Hemchandra
Jha vs. State of Bihar) and was temporarily reinstated, the
respondent argues that such reinstatement does not cure the
fundamental defect of a forged appointment.
28. Counsel for the Respondents further solidifies his stand by
the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Devendra Sharma (supra), which settled the issue that illegal or
forged appointments do not confer any right to the post or
subsequent benefits. The Supreme Court’s findings in Devendra
Sharma , make it clear that when an appointment is found to be
forged, as is the case with the petitioner according to the
Darbhanga Civil Surgeon’s report and the departmental
committee, the individual cannot claim parity with regularized
employees. The Hon’ble Division Bench in the petitioner’s own
previous case, LPA No. 292 of 2014, also noted that the
distinction between illegal and irregular appointments is now
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
27/134
firmly governed by the Devendra Sharma precedent.
29. Learned counsel further submits that the
dispute of the forged appointments reached finality before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Bihar &
Ors vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad (Civil Appeal No. 8649 of 2018,
arising out of SLP(C) No. 24742 of 2012). In judgment dated
30.11.2018 (Annexure-R-4/5), the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed
the appeals filed by the State of Bihar and dismissed the writ
petitions filed by the illegal appointees. The Court held that
since the appointments were obtained through fake or forged
letters or were surreptitiously facilitated by Civil Surgeons
without following proper induction processes, they were void ab
initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court explicitly noted that such
beneficiaries of illegal orders cannot be considered “civil
servants” of the State, and therefore, the protections of Article
311 of the Constitution of India or other disciplinary rules do
not apply.
30. Counsel for the Respondents lastly submits
that in light of the aforementioned facts and the definitive ruling
in Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra), the petitioner has no legal
right to seek regularization or the restoration of pensionary
benefits. As the appointment was void ab initio, it never created
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
28/134
a valid employer-employee relationship, thereby precluding any
claim to retiral benefits or the invocation of Para- 53 of the
Uma Devi’s judgment. The rejection of the petitioner’s
representation vide Memo No. 390(4b) dated 29.10.2025 was a
necessary administrative consequence of the proven forged
documents and the clear judicial precedents established by both
the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, the writ application and the interlocutory prayer lack
merit and are liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16069 of 2023
31. The relief sought for in CWJC No. 16069 of
2023 is as follows:-
“That the present application is for
issuance of a writ in the nature of writ
certiorari for quashing the part of the letter
with respect to the petitioner issued vide
memo no. 2998 dated 27.09.2023 under the
signature of the Civil Surgeon cum Chief
Medical Officer, Madhubani as contained in
Annexure- P14 by which the pension of the
petitioner has been stopped with effect from
issuance of the letter, without any notice to
show cause to him rather only by referring
some orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in which he was not a party. And further a
writ in the nature of writ of mandamus
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
29/134directing the respondent authorities to pay
the pension to the petitioner which is being
paid to him regularly till now since after his
superannuation from service. And/or pass
such other order/orders as this Hon’ble
Court may think fit and proper.”
Written arguments/oral submissions of the
petitioner in CWJC No. 16069 of 2023.
32. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner, Raj Narayan Poddar, having passed his
Graduation Examination (B.A. Hons.) in the year 1983 from
BRA Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, applied for the post of
Health Educator following an advertisement issued by the Civil
Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. Pursuant to
his application, the petitioner was directed to appear for an
interview September 26, 1989, at 11:00 A.M. in the office of
the selection committee vide Memo No. 2256 dated September
19, 1989 (Annexure-P1). It is relevant to state that the Selection
Committee, which included the District Welfare Officer,
Additional Chief Medical Officer, and Deputy Superintendent of
Sadar Hospital, Madhubani, was formally constituted by the
competent authority via Letter No. 2238 dated September 16,
1989 (Annexure-P2). Upon being successfully selected by the
committee, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Health
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
30/134
Educator in the pay scale of 730-1080 on September 26, 1989,
vide Memo No. 2327 (Annexure-P3), and he subsequently
joined his duties on October 15, 1989, being posted at the
Additional Primary Health Centre, Bhagwanpur, under the
Primary Health Centre, Rajnagar, Madhubani.
33. He further submits that during the initial years
of his dedicated service, the petitioner was also subject to
various administrative orders including Memo No. 2787 dated
September 27, 1989 (Annexure-P5) and reference was made to
Memo No. 149 dated September 2, 1984 (Annexure-P6).
However, the petitioner’s services were abruptly and arbitrarily
terminated on July 1, 2000, vide Memo No. 1400 (Annexure-
P4). Prior to this, the petitioner had also faced administrative
challenges as evidenced by Memo No. 2686 dated July 21, 2003
(Annexure-P11), which was part of a larger administrative
action affecting multiple employees.
34. The series of litigation involved the petitioner
moving this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 9759 of 2003, which
resulted in a significant order dated January 19, 2005
(Annexure-P9), directing the authorities to look into the
grievances of the terminated employees. In the meantime,
various communications were exchanged, including Letter No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
31/134
4077 dated November 15, 2005 (Annexure-P7), Letter No. 3346
dated November 14, 2007 (Annexure-P10), and Letter No. 921
dated November 30, 2007 (Annexure-P8), as the state
authorities were directed on June 26, 2006, to reconsider the
cases of affected employees like the petitioner. Despite these
directions, the petitioner remained out of service until the matter
reached a definitive conclusion through the judicial intervention
of this Hon’ble Court, which continuously scrutinized the
arbitrary termination and the lack of a proper enquiry into the
petitioner’s original selection and appointment process.
35. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner finally obtained substantial relief
through the order dated November 30, 2009, passed in CWJC
No. 14379 of 2009 and analogous cases (Annexure-P12),
wherein the Hon’ble Court was pleased to quash the impugned
enquiry report and directed the respondents to reinstate the
petitioners in their respective positions with all consequential
benefits. In strict compliance with this judicial mandate, the
petitioner was reinstated in service on May 17, 2012, vide
Memo No. 1294 (Annexure-P13), and continued to serve as a
Health Educator with full honesty and dedication. The petitioner
eventually reached the age of superannuation and retired from
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
32/134
service on September 30, 2021, while posted at the Primary
Health Centre, Babubarhi, Madhubani. Following his
retirement, all his post-retiral benefits, including pension,
gratuity, leave encashment, GPF, and Group Insurance, were
duly processed and paid, and he began receiving his monthly
pension regularly.
36. Lastly, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel
on behalf of Petitioner that the respondent authorities,
specifically the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer,
Madhubani, issued an order vide Memo No. 2998 dated
September 27, 2023 (Annexure-P14), whereby the petitioner’s
pension was stopped with immediate effect. This impugned
action was taken without any notice to show cause or any
opportunity of being heard, which constitutes a gross violation
of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The respondents have purportedly based
this decision on certain orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in cases, where the petitioner was not even a party,
making the stoppage of his hard-earned pension legally
unsustainable and mala fide. The petitioner, therefore, prays for
the quashing of Annexure-P14 and a direction to the
respondents to restore his month-to-month admissible pension,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
33/134
which he had been receiving since his retirement.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
NO. 4/the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer,
Madhubani.
37. The Learned Counsel for the respondent
submits that the present writ petition, which seeks the quashing
of the order stopping the petitioner’s pension, is devoid of merit
as the petitioner’s very appointment was fundamentally illegal
and void ab initio. It is submitted that the appointment letter of
the petitioner (Annexure-P3 to the writ petition) erroneously
describes him as a “voluntary worker” being promoted to the
post of Health Educator, whereas no such sanctioned post of
voluntary worker existed within the State Government. A Five-
Member Committee, formally constituted to examine the
validity of such appointments made by regional health
authorities in an arbitrary manner, submitted an Inquiry Report
(Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit and Annexure-R/A to the
Supplementary Counter Affidavit). In this report, the petitioner’s
name explicitly appears at Serial No. 143, confirming that his
appointment was made in gross violation of the constitutional
mandate for public employment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
34/134
38. Learned counsel further submits that the
findings of the said Committee have been extensively
scrutinized and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
several rounds of litigation involving similarly situated persons.
Specifically, by the judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed in Civil
Appeal No. 8649 of 2018 (Annexure-B to the Counter Affidavit
and Annexure-R/B to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit), the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the State Committee had
rightly opined that such appointments were illegal and void, and
thus found no ground to disagree with those findings. This legal
position was further reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
its judgment dated 17.10.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7879
of 2019 and analogous cases (Annexure-C to the Counter
Affidavit), wherein the appeals filed by the State Government
were allowed based on the same Inquiry Report.
39. He submits that a consistent stand by the State
authorities is taken, who originally terminated the petitioner’s
services as Health Educator on 01.07.2000 vide Letter No. 1400
due to the illegal nature of his appointment. While the petitioner
and others challenged these terminations, this Hon’ble Court, on
26.06.2006, decided a batch of cases including L.P.A. No. 946
of 2003 (Purendra Solankit vs. The State of Bihar), directing
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
35/134
the State to constitute a High-Level Committee to reconsider the
matters in light of the principles laid down in the Uma Devi
case. The petitioner’s earlier challenge in CWJC No. 10781 of
2003 was likewise disposed of with a direction for the
department-constituted Committee to decide the matter, which
ultimately culminated in the finding that his appointment fell
under the “illegal and forged” category rather than the
“irregular” category.
40. Lastly, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel
on behalf of Respondent that the stoppage of the petitioner’s
pension via Memo No. 2998 dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure-P14)
was a necessary administrative consequence of the
aforementioned judicial findings and departmental
communications. These actions were supported by Letter No.
1008(4) dated 11.07.2023, Corrigendum Letter No. 1165(4)
dated 04.08.2023, and Letter No. 1311(4) dated 30.08.2023
(collectively marked as Annexure-D in the Counter Affidavit
and Annexure-R/E Series in the Supplementary Counter
Affidavit). Since an appointment that is void from the beginning
cannot confer any legal right to post-retiral benefits, the
respondents have acted within their jurisdiction and in
accordance with the law as established by the Hon’ble Apex
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
36/134
Court. The respondent authorities, therefore, pray that the writ
petition be dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to any relief
based on an inherently illegal appointment.
REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER IN REPLY
OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
41. In response to the Counter Affidavit filed by
the respondents, the petitioner through this Rejoinder submits
that the action of the State is hit by the vice of discrimination
and lack of parity. The petitioner draws the attention of this
Hon’ble Court to the case of a similarly situated employee, Sri
Uday Shankar Prasad, whose services were also once under
cloud but who has since been granted all admissible
ACP/MACP benefits, annual increments, and the entire salary
for the period of his termination until reinstatement, as per the
order dated 30.11.2022 passed in M.J.C. No. 3948 of 2022 and
subsequent office orders (Annexures P16, P17, and P18). It is
submitted that while the State has released full financial benefits
and regularized the services of other employees appearing in the
same inquiry report, the petitioner is being singled out and
deprived of his hard-earned pension. This inconsistent approach
by the respondent authorities, wherein they apply different
standards to similarly placed individuals, constitutes a clear
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
37/134
violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of
India, rendering the impugned order for stoppage of pension
legally untenable and liable to be quashed.
SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER
42. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner by
referring to the statement made in Supplementary Affidavit
submits that the respondent authorities have failed to consider
the judicial finality attained in the petitioner’s case, specifically
referring to the order dated 06.12.2021 passed in L.P.A. No. 16
of 2014 (Annexure-19). It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court,
while adjudicating CWJC No. 15296 of 2009 and analogous
cases, had already quashed the inquiry report of the Five-
Member Committee which sought to categorize the petitioner’s
appointment as illegal or forged. The court had observed that the
inquiry was conducted in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice without providing any opportunity to the
employees to defend their cases or examine relevant documents.
Since the very foundation of the respondents’ claim the inquiry
report was judicially set aside, the respondents are now estopped
from reviving those dead findings to justify the arbitrary
stoppage of the petitioner’s pension vide Memo No. 2998,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
38/134
particularly after the petitioner has successfully completed his
entire service tenure and retired without any departmental
blemish.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.
2/the Director in Chief, Health Service, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
43. Learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the petitioner’s claim for the restoration of pension is
fundamentally flawed as it arises from an appointment that was
“illegal and void ab initio”. The petitioner’s service as a Health
Educator was terminated as far back as July 1, 2000, by the
Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani,
following the discovery of widespread illegal and forged
appointments made by regional authorities in total disregard of
constitutional mandates for public employment. Although the
petitioner initially challenged this termination, his case was part
of a broader batch of litigation’s including LPA No. 946 of 2003
where the Hon’ble Court directed the State to constitute a High-
Level Committee to scrutinize the validity of these
appointments in light of the Uma Devi case.
44. Upon detailed scrutiny, the State Committee
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
39/134
specifically identified the petitioner’s appointment at Serial No.
143 of its report as “illegal,” distinguishing it from those
categorized as merely “irregular”. Under the settled principles of
law, particularly those established by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Bihar v. Kirti Narayan Prasad and State of
Bihar v. Devendra Sharma, an individual whose very entry into
service is illegal or forged cannot be recognized as a “Civil
Servant” of the State. Consequently, such persons are not
entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution, nor
are they eligible for any post-retiral benefits, including pension,
as their entire tenure is deemed non-est in the eyes of the law.
45. Learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the stoppage of the petitioner’s pension via Memo No. 2998
dated September 27, 2023, was a necessary administrative
correction once the status of his illegal appointment was
reaffirmed. The subsequent reasoned order issued on August 20,
2024 (Annexure-21), which rejected the petitioner’s
representation, was passed in strict compliance with the
directions of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 16/2014. This order
correctly applied the law laid down by the Apex Court, which
mandates that where an appointment is found to be illegal rather
than irregular, the question of regularization or the grant of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
40/134
retiral benefits does not arise.
46. In light of these facts, the petitioner’s pursuit
of a writ of mandamus to compel the payment of pension is
legally unsustainable. The State cannot be directed to utilize
public funds to pay pensionary benefits to an individual, whose
appointment was obtained through means that bypassed the
legal recruitment process and was later formally declared illegal
by a competent committee. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed
that the present writ petition and the accompanying
Interlocutory Application be dismissed as devoid of merit.
CWJC No. 16670 of 2023
47. The instant writ petition has been filed for
the following relief(s):-
“1. For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of a writ of
CERTIORARI quashing memo
No.415dated15.07.2023 issued under the
signature of the In-Charge Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre, Kanti, Muzaffarpur,
contained in Annexure P2 by which he,
without any inquiry or even show cause
notice, has ceased the family pension of the
petitioner after 4 (four) years from the date
of sanctioning of the said Family Pension, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
41/134compliance of the Order issued under memo
no. 2468 dated 15.07.2023 by the Civil
Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer,
Muzaffarpur, Order issued under letter no.
1008 (4) dated 11.07.2023 by the Director-
Chief (Disease Control Health Para
Medical), Health Services, Bihar Patna and
the order issued under memo no. 259 dated
13.07.2023 by the Regional Additional
Director, Health Services, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur and also referring to two orders
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
which the husband of the petitioner was not
a party.
II). For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of a writ of
Mandamus directing the concerned
authorities not to stop the family pension of
the petitioner and to pay month-to-month
admissible family Pension to the petitioner
which has been paid to her continuously
since after the death of her husband.
III). For issuance of any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders
direction/directions for which the writ
petitioner would be found entitled under the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
Written arguments/oral submissions of the
petitioner in CWJC No. 16670 of 2023.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
42/134
48. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner, Kuwar Munni Devi @ Munni Devi,
is the widow of Late Laxmi Narayan Singh, who was originally
appointed to the post of Male Ward Attendant (Class-IV post) in
the year 1988. This appointment was made by the competent
authority following the due process of recruitment on a
sanctioned and vacant Class IV post. It is submitted that
although his appointment was abruptly terminated in 2003 on
arbitrary allegations of submitting forged documents, the same
was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 7610 of 2003, wherein the
Hon’ble Court stayed the termination on 27.08.2003, leading to
his resumption of service vide Memo No. 1899 dated
04.09.2003. Following a further legal trajectory in L.P.A. No.
946 of 2003 and a subsequent re-examination of original service
records directed by the Division Bench on 26.06.2006 in light of
the Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi case, the Civil
Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur, issued Memo
No. 2985 dated 04.10.2008, withdrawing the termination and
reinstating him unconditionally. The husband of the petitioner
continued to work uninterruptedly for more than 30 years on a
regular basis under the Department of Health in the district of
Muzaffarpur. During his entire service period, no departmental
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
43/134
proceedings were ever initiated, nor was any complaint made
against him regarding his service. After serving for over three
decades with dedication, the husband of the petitioner retired
from his service on 30.11.2018, and upon his retirement, his
regular pension was sanctioned and paid to him by the
respondent authorities.
49. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that following the retirement of her husband, he
unfortunately passed away on 02.04.2019. Consequently, the
petitioner filed an application in the prescribed form before the
concerned authority on 24.12.2019 for the grant of family
pension. This application, along with the required undertaking
was filed on the same date (Annexure-P1). After examining the
petitioner’s documents, the department granted the family
pension, and she began receiving these payments on monthly
basis. The petitioner continued to receive her admissible family
pension continuously for approximately four years after the
death of her husband, without any interruption or dispute from
the respondent authorities.
50. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
that, all of a sudden, a cryptic and arbitrary order was issued
under the signature of the In-Charge Medical Officer, Primary
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
44/134
Health Centre, Kanti, Muzaffarpur, vide Memo No. 415 dated
15.07.2023 (Annexure-P2), by which the family pension of the
petitioner was ceased. This impugned order was issued in
compliance with a series of administrative communications,
including Memo No. 2468 dated 15.07.2023 issued by the Civil
Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur; Letter No.
1008 (4) dated 11.07.2023 by the Director-in-Chief (Disease
Control Public Health Para Medical), Health Services, Bihar,
Patna; and Memo No. 259 dated 13.07.2023 issued by the
Regional Additional Director, Health Services, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur. Furthermore, the impugned was passed by
erroneously relying on Supreme Court judgments in the cases
of Devendra Sharma and Kriti Narayan Prasad to which the
deceased was not a party. It is submitted that this action
completely ignores the joint review reports dated 30.06.2023
and 04.07.2023 (Annexure-P/1 of rejoinder) which categorically
reaffirmed the legality of the husband’s appointment on a
sanctioned post. The Learned Counsel contends that such
termination of a sanctioned family pension is a clear violation of
Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, as well as the
principles of natural justice and constitutional safeguards under
Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
45/134
especially since no departmental or judicial proceeding was ever
initiated against the employee during his lifetime or even
against the petitioner.
51. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner
contends that the termination of the family pension after four
years is based on the claim that the husband’s service was
irregular, illegal, or forged, which is not justified in the eyes of
the law given his 30 years of regular service. Prior to issuing the
cryptic order contained in Annexure-P2, the authority concerned
neither issued any show-cause notice to the petitioner nor
afforded her any opportunity of being heard. This action is a
clear violation of the principles of natural justice and is contrary
to the provisions laid down in the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
The Counsel emphasizes that it is malafide in law and represents
an arbitrary exercise of power to cease a sanctioned pension
after such a significant duration without any formal inquiry or
notice.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS
52. The Learned Counsel for the respondents
submits that the impugned order dated 15.07.2023, as contained
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
46/134
in Memo No. 415, was issued in strict compliance with the
directions of the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, vide
Memo No. 1008(4) dated 11.07.2023. It is contended that the
husband of the petitioner was among several employees, whose
initial appointments were found to be irregular, illegal, or based
on forged documents following a high-level scrutiny of the
state’s recruitment records. The respondent authorities maintain
that since the very foundation of the service was based on an
illegal appointment, the subsequent grant of pension and family
pension does not confer a permanent right upon the petitioner to
continue receiving benefits from the state exchequer. The action
taken was a necessary administrative correction intended to
rectify past recruitment lapses and was conducted in accordance
with the broader policy decisions of the Health Department.
53. It is further submitted that the reliance placed
by the department on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Devendra Sharma and Kriti Narayan
Prasadis legally sound, as these precedents establish that illegal
or forged appointments do not entitle an individual to terminal
benefits. The Learned Counsel contends that the writ petition is
devoid of merit because the cessation of the family pension was
not an isolated act of malice but a consequence of a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
47/134
departmental review that identified the deceased husband’s
appointment as invalid. Consequently, the respondents pray that
the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ
application, as the petitioner has no legal or fundamental right to
claim a pension arising from a service that was void ab initio.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER
54. In response to the counter affidavit, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have
failed to provide any evidence of a show-cause notice or a
formal inquiry before stopping the family pension, which had
been paid uninterruptedly for four years following the death of
the employee. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner
served for over 30 years and retired on 30.11.2018 with a clean
record, and his service had already been scrutinized and
validated by the Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur, in 2008
(Annexure-P/5) following the orders of this Hon’ble Court in
L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. The petitioner contends that the
respondents cannot now, after the death of the employee,
unilaterally label the appointment as “forged” based on a “Five-
Men Committee” report that was never shared with the
petitioner and does not even name the deceased husband as a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
48/134
party to any fraud.
55. The Learned Counsel further highlights that the
respondents have misleadingly relied upon internal memos and
Supreme Court judgments that are factually distinguishable
from the present case. Under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension
Rules, 1950, pension once sanctioned cannot be withdrawn
without departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding finding
the employee guilty of grave misconduct during his service.
Since the petitioner’s husband retired without any such finding
and no proceeding was initiated within the statutory limitation
period, the sudden cessation of the family pension via Memo
No. 415 is an arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioner asserts
that the joint review reports dated 30.06.2023 and 04.07.2023
specifically affirmed the legality of her husband’s appointment,
making the impugned order is a violation of principle of natural
justice.
CWJC No. 16761 of 2023
56. The writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“That the present writ
application is for issuance of a writ in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
49/134
nature of writ of certiorari for quashing part
of the order with respect to the petitioner
issued vide memo no. 1485 dated 05.10.2023
under the signature of the Civil Surgeon cum
Chief Medical Officer, Jamui as contained in
Annexure- P13 whereby and whereunder
pension of the petitioner has been stopped by
referring some orders in which the petitioner
was not a party. and further also for
quashing the consequential letter issued vide
memo no. 255 dated 05.10.2023 issued
under the signature of the Incharge Medical
Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sikandra,
Jamui as contained in Annexure-P14
whereby and whereunder the Accountant
Genereal, Bihar, Patna was asked to stop the
pension of the petitioner. And further a writ
in the nature of writ of mandamus directing
the concerned respondent authorities to
ensure payment of month to month
admissible pension to the petitioner which
he was getting continuously And/or pass
such other order/orders as this Hon’ble
Court may think fit and proper.”
Written arguments/oral submissions of the
petitioner in CWJC No. 16761 of 2023
57. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
50/134
the petitioner was admitted for the training of Basic Health
Worker in the Sadar Hospital, Saharsa, and after successful
completion of said training from 25.09.1973 to 30.06.1974, a
certificate was issued in his favour under the joint signatures of
the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Saharsa, and the
Deputy Director, Health Services (Health), Bihar, Patna.
Following an advertisement published in the daily newspaper
“Aryavart” inviting applications from trained yet unemployed
Basic Health Workers, the petitioner applied with all necessary
documents. On the basis of Health Directorate Letter No.
2106(22) dated 14.11.1986 and Letter No. 9(22) dated
05.01.1987, an appointment order was issued vide Memo No.
1426 dated 16.07.1987 by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical
Officer, Dumka (Annexure-P1), whereby the petitioner joined
the post on 01.10.1987 at the Primary Health Centre, Nala,
Dumka. He was subsequently transferred by the Regional
Deputy Director, Health Services, Bhagalpur Division, via
Memo No. 207 dated 23.02.1989, and joined the office of the
Civil Surgeon, Munger, on 07.04.1989. Thereafter, via Memo
No. 1361 dated 19.04.1989, he was posted to the Primary Health
Centre, Sikandra, Munger (now Jamui), where he joined on
21.04.1989.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
51/134
58. It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel
that after approximately 16 years of service, the petitioner’s
services were terminated w.e.f. 01.03.2003 via a cyclostyle
letter, Memo No. 316 dated 25.02.2003, issued by the Civil
Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Jamui (Annexure-P2),
without following the procedure under Article 311(2) of the
Constitution. This termination was challenged in CWJC No.
7365 of 2003, and by a common judgment dated 26.06.2006
passed in LPA No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases, the court
directed the Health Department to reconsider the cases in light
of the Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi judgment.
Subsequently, an enquiry report by a five-man committee
declared the petitioner’s appointment forged on the ground that
his “Certificate of BHW found forged”. This report was
prepared behind the petitioner’s back without any opportunity
for hearing or show cause, despite the fact that the petitioner
fulfilled all five criteria for scrutiny, including appointment by a
competent authority on a sanctioned vacant post with requisite
qualifications.
59. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the five-man enquiry committee, after a delay of
approximately two years, issued a report erroneously labelling
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
52/134
the petitioner’s appointment as “forged” on the unfounded
ground that his Basic Health Worker (BHW) certificate was
fraudulent. It is contended that this enquiry was conducted in
deliberate violation of the principles of natural justice, equity,
and fair play, as the report was prepared behind the petitioner’s
back without the issuance of a show-cause notice or any
opportunity for a hearing. The committee appears to have acted
in clear violation of principal of natural justice, equity and fair
play, overlooking the undeniable fact that the petitioner fulfilled
all five established criteria for scrutiny, including appointment
by a competent authority to a sanctioned vacant post and
possessing all requisite qualifications, backed by sixteen years
of unblemished service. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that
the committee adopted a corrupt “pick and choose”
methodology rooted in illegal considerations; specifically, while
the petitioner’s appointment through a valid selection process
was termed “forged,” the committee categorized the
appointment of one Pradip Kumar Karn who was absorbed from
a voluntary worker to a clerical post via Memo No. 2787 dated
27.09.1989 as merely “irregular,” leading to his reinstatement
(Annexure-P/3). It is further contended that as per the settled
law in 2008(1) PLJR 841 and 2009(2) PLJR 869, the services of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
53/134a permanent employee can only be terminated or interfered with
by following the strict procedures mandated under Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India.
60. The Learned Counsel further submits that the
enquiry committee adopted a “pick and choose” method due to
illegal consideration. For instance, Krishna Murari Singh, whose
appointment was held irregular, was reinstated via Memo No.
1117(4) dated 20.09.2007. Similarly, Sri Siddhnath Thakur, Sri
Rupak Bhaumik, Sri Balram Jha etc., was reinstated via the
same memo despite a finding in the enquiry report that their
appointment was found illegal but despite that they were
reinstated in services. Further, Binod Narayan was reinstated
despite being appointed by an in-charge Civil Surgeon, as
evidenced by letters dated 15.11.2005 and 30.10.2007
(Annexures-P5 and P6).
61. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that
the petitioner filed CWJC No. 16907 of 2009. By order dated
19.10.2011, this Hon’ble Court quashed the enquiry report and
directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all
consequential benefits (Annexure-P10). The petitioner was
reinstated via Memo No. 1929 dated 20.10.2012 by the Civil
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
54/134
Surgeon, Jamui (Annexure-P11). The State’s appeal, LPA No.
1105 of 2013, was dismissed on 15.04.2014 (analogous to LPA
No. 568 of 2013), with liberty to the State to proceed afresh in
accordance with law (Annexure-P12). No such proceeding was
ever initiated, and the petitioner finally superannuated from
service w.e.f. 31.01.2018 after attaining 60 years of age.
Following superannuation, all post-retiral benefits including
pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GPF, and Group Insurance
were fixed and paid regularly to him.
62. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel
that the petitioner’s monthly pension was abruptly stopped via
Memo No. 1485 05.10.2023 issued by the Civil Surgeon cum
Chief Medical Officer, Jamui (Annexure-P13). This was
followed by a consequential letter, Memo No. 255 dated
05.10.2023, by the In-charge Medical Officer, PHC Sikandra,
asking the Accountant General, Bihar, to stop the payments
(Annexure-P14). These orders were passed in reference to
Supreme Court orders in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 and
8649 of 2018, cases in which the petitioner was not even a party.
This action is not only malafide and arbitrary but also
contemptuous, as the earlier liberty to proceed against the
petitioner was never utilized. Furthermore, several other persons
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
55/134
involved in those same Supreme Court appeals, such as
Surendra Prasad, Parmeshwar Yadav, and Khurshid Alam,
continue to receive their pension and benefits. The impugned
orders were passed without any show cause notice or
opportunity for hearing, in clear violation of the principles of
natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 3
63. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3
submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the
actions taken by the respondent authorities are in strict
compliance with the directions of the State Government and the
Hon’ble Courts orders. In light of order passed in LPA No. 946
of 2003 (State of Bihar and others v. Purendra Sulan kit and
others), direction was issued to stop pension of those
employees, whose appointment was found forged by five
members committee vide file no. 40 of 2023 further issued
Letter No. 1008(4) dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-R/B) in light of
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Devendra
Sharma) order dated 17.10.2019 and Civil Appeal No. 8649 of
2018 order dated 30.11.2018 and letter no. 1165 (4) Patna dated
04.08.2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
56/134
appointments made without following due process, or those
found to be illegal/forged, do not confer any right upon the
employee to claim salary or post-retiral benefits. Following this,
the Special Working Officer of the Health Department issued a
reminder vide File No. 12/P court-01-41/2017-1446(12) dated
25.09.2023 (Annexure-R/D).
64. It is further submitted that a Five-Member
Enquiry Committee, constituted as per earlier judicial
directions, had scrutinized the petitioner’s service records and
submitted its report on 26.06.2006 (Annexure-R/A). The
committee concluded that the petitioner’s appointment was
illegal and his Basic Health Worker (BHW) certificate was
forged. Consequently, in view of the mandates of the
Departmental Letter No. 1165(4) dated 04.08.2023 and the
aforementioned Supreme Court judgments, the Civil Surgeon-
cum-Chief Medical Officer, Jamui, issued Memo No.
1485/Jamui dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure-R/E) to stop the
petitioner’s pension levelling charge on forged appointment.
This was followed by a consequential order via Memo No. 255
dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure-P/14) by the Incharge Medical
Officer, PHC Sikandra, Jamui, requesting the Accountant
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
57/134
General to cease all payments.
(REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)
65. It is submitted by the learned counsel on
behalf of the petitioner that the counter affidavit filed by
Respondent No. 3 reflects a complete lack of application of
mind and contains irrelevant facts designed to mislead this
Hon’ble Court and deny the petitioner’s rightful claims. The
petitioner asserts that the reliance placed by the State on the
Supreme Court judgments in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 and
Civil Appeal No. 8649 of 2018 is entirely misplaced, as the
petitioner was never a party to those proceedings. Furthermore,
these judgments were passed in personam not in rem, making
them inapplicable to the petitioner’s specific circumstances. It is
a matter of record that the State’s own appeal against the
petitioner, bearing LPA No. 1105 of 2013, was dismissed by this
Hon’ble Court as far back as 15.04.2014. While the court at that
time granted liberty to the authorities to initiate fresh
proceedings in accordance with the law, but no such action or
inquiry was ever undertaken. Consequently, the impugned order
dated 05.10.2023, which seeks to penalize the petitioner under
the guise of Supreme Court precedents without providing a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
58/134
show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing, is a gross
violation of the principles of natural justice.
66. Furthermore, the learned counsel submits that
the authorities are following a repetitive and illegal modus
operandi, as evidenced by the case of Sri Uday Shankar Prasad,
a similarly situated employee whose termination was quashed
by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 8393 of 2009. Although the
State initially resisted granting him benefits, they were
eventually compelled to reinstate him and pay all consequential
arrears, including ACP/MACP and salary revisions, following
strict directives in contempt proceedings under MJC No. 3948
of 2013. The petitioner highlights that in that instance, the Court
had to threaten a cost of Rs. 25,000/- against the Officiating
Secretary of the Health Department to ensure compliance with
its orders. The petitioner has annexed the relevant orders from
November and December 2022 (Annexures P/15, P/16, and
P/17) to demonstrate that the State has previously acknowledged
the rights of employees in identical situations once faced with
judicial scrutiny. The current action against the petitioner is,
therefore, inconsistent with the State’s established legal
obligations and past compliance in nearly identical matters.
67. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
59/134
that the impugned action of stopping the petitioner’s pension is
characterized by extreme arbitrariness and a “pick and choose”
policy. The petitioner has provided an extensive list of
individuals across various districts including Madhubani,
Muzaffarpur, Arwal, Jehanabad, and Bhagalpur whose
appointments were similarly flagged by the Five-Man Enquiry
Committee but who continued to either remain in service or
receive their monthly pensions regularly. Specific names such as
Sri Ganesh Prasad, Sri Devendra Lal Karn, Sri Sahdeo Prasad
Yadav, and several others have been cited to illustrate this
discriminatory treatment. It is submitted that targeting a retired
employee of 65 years of age after his superannuation, without
any formal departmental proceeding or inquiry, is a mala
fide exercise of administrative power.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 6/the
Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
68. The counter affidavit submitted by the
Accountant General of Bihar (Respondent No. 6) clarifies that
the petitioner, Arvind Kumar, is a retired Basic Health Worker
from the Primary Health Centre in Sikandra, Jamui, holding
P.P.O. No. 201811041440. The respondent acknowledges that
the petitioner is seeking to quash Memo No. 1485 and Letter
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
60/134
No. 255, both dated October 5, 2023, which were issued by
medical authorities to stop his pension. Following the receipt of
these specific instructions from the In-charge Medical Officer at
Sikandra, the Accountant General’s office issued Letter No.
1616 on November 2, 2023, to the Treasury Officer in Nalanda,
formally directing that the petitioner’s pension payments be
stopped. This communication from the Accountant General’s
office, which implemented the stoppage, is annexed to their
filing as Annexure-A.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2/ the
Director in Chief (Disease Control Public Health and Para Medical
Health Service, Bihar, Patna.
69. Respondent No. 2, representing the Health
Department of the State of Bihar through the Additional
Director of Health Services, asserts that the petitioner’s
appointment as a Basic Health Worker was fundamentally
flawed and falls under the category of illegal and forged
recruitment. It is contended that the appointment was made by
regional authorities in an arbitrary manner, completely ignoring
the constitutional mandates and statutory procedures required
for public employment. Learned counsel contends that once the
massive scale of forged appointments in the Health Department
came to light, a systematic review was initiated, leading to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
61/134
petitioner’s original termination by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief
Medical Officer, Jamui, as early as February 25, 2003, via Letter
No. 316. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 maintains that
because the very foundation of the petitioner’s entry into service
was fraudulent, no legal right to the post or subsequent retiral
benefits ever vested in the petitioner.
70. The learned counsel for the respondent further
provides a detailed history of the litigation surrounding these
appointments, noting that several writ petitions were initially
filed against such terminations and were allowed by Single
Judge benches. However, the State of Bihar challenged these
orders through various Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), including
the landmark LPA No. 946 of 2003 (Purendra Solankit vs. The
State of Bihar), which resulted in a directive on June 26, 2006,
to constitute a Five-men Committee. This Committee was
tasked with scrutinizing the validity of appointments in light of
the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi case. The
learned counsel also submits that a writ petition CWJC No.
7365 of 2003 was also filed by the petitioner against his
termination which was also disposed of along with LPA No. 946
of 2003. The State emphasizes that the petitioner’s case was
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
62/134
specifically referred to this Committee, which categorized the
vast majority of such recruits as illegal or forged, with only a
small fraction (91 employees) being found irregular and thus
eligible for regularization.
71. Further the learned counsel points out that the
petitioner’s own appointment was subjected to this rigorous
scrutiny and was unequivocally identified as a “forged
appointment,” standing at Serial No. 176 of the formal
Committee Report. The State argues that subsequent judicial
developments further solidified their stand, citing batch cases
such as CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 (Om Prakash vs. State of
Bihar), where initial orders in favor of the employees were set
aside by the Division Bench in various LPAs, including LPA
No. 200 of 2010 and LPA No. 566 of 2010, on September 24,
2014. Although the petitioner cites the dismissal of the State’s
LPA No. 1105 of 2013 on April 15, 2014, the respondent
suggests that such dismissals do not override the substantive
findings of the State Committee or the broader mandates of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the dismissal of writ petitions
involving forged appointments.
72. Lastly, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel
that the State justified in the issuance of Memo No. 1485 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
63/134
Letter No. 255 dated October 5, 2023, which directed the
stoppage of the petitioner’s pensionary benefits. The respondent
argues that these actions are not arbitrary but are a necessary
implementation of judicial findings that categorized the
petitioner’s service as void ab initio due to the forged nature of
the initial appointment. Respondent No. 2 asserts that the
Accountant General, Bihar, was correctly advised to stop
payments because the petitioner does not meet the legal
threshold of a “government servant” entitled to public funds
after superannuation. The learned counsel maintains that the
current writ petition is devoid of merit, as the petitioner seeks to
protect benefits derived from a fraudulent entry into the state
cadre, which cannot be sustained under the Bihar Pension Rules
or the principles of administrative fairness.
CWJC No. 17963 of 2023
73. The present writ petition seeks the following
relief(s):-
“For issuance of a writ in the nature of
writ of certiorari for quashing part of the order
with respect to Late Husband of the petitioner
issued vide memo no. 2468 dated 15.07.2023 under
the signature of the Civil Surgeon cum Chief
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
64/134Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur as contained in
Annexure-P13 whereby and whereunder the
concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officers have
been directed to ensure stoppage of pension of
those employees who have been retired/died. And
further also for quashing the consequential letter
issued vide memo no. 332 dated 15.07.2023 under
the signature of the Incharge Medical Officer,
Community Health Centre, Sahebganj,
Muzaffarpur as contained in Annexure-P14
whereby and whereunder the Accountant Genereal,
Bihar, Patna has been asked to stop pension of
husband of the petitioner And further a writ in the
nature of writ of mandamus directing the
concerned respondent authorities to ensure
payment of month to month admissible family
pension to the petitioner which she was getting
continuously since after death of her husband Late
Harishchandra Prasad. And/or pass such other
order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may think fit
and proper.”
Written arguments/oral submissions of the
petitioner in CWJC No. 17963 of 2023.
74. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the late husband of the petitioner, Harishchandra
Prasad, was appointed to the post of Health Worker (Class-III)
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
65/134
on 27.12.1988, vide Memo No. 3252 (Annexure P/1). This
appointment was made by the then Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief
Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur. The husband of the petitioner
thereafter joined the office of the Primary Health Centre,
Sahebganj, Muzaffarpur, on 28.12.1988. After serving for
several years with full dedication and honesty, he was abruptly
terminated from service along with 15 others vide Memo No. 88
dated 11.01.2003 (Annexure P/2), w.e.f. issuance of letter, after
holding their appointment as illegal/forged, without any inquiry
proceeding in accordance with Article 311 (2) and without
providing a proper opportunity to be heard, which was a clear
violation of the principles of natural justice.
75. It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel
for the petitioner that aggrieved by the said termination, the
husband of the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.
No. 3332 of 2003. This Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass an
interim order on 15.04.2003 staying the operation of the
termination order, and subsequently, vide a common order dated
08.09.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4702 of 2003 and other
analogous cases reported in 2003 (4) PLJR 282, the termination
order was set aside with a direction for reinstatement. Despite
the judicial intervention, the respondent State preferred an
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
66/134
appeal before the Division Bench bearing L.P.A. No. 205 of
2004 against the order passed in the husband’s case. The said
appeal, along with L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and other analogous
matters reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 386, was disposed of on
26.06.2006 with a direction to the authorities to reconsider the
cases of all affected employees in terms of paragraph 44 of the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi.
76. Learned counsel further contends that
following the remand for reconsideration, an enquiry was
conducted; however, in the subsequent enquiry report it was
held that the appointment of the husband of the petitioner is
illegal were again challenged before this Hon’ble Court in
CWJC No. 3819 of 2008. On 06.10.2009, this Hon’ble Court
was pleased to quash the impugned enquiry report as well as the
termination order. Consequently, the husband of the petitioner
was reinstated in service vide Memo No. 2991 dated 21.10.2009
(Annexure P/10). The State again challenged this decision
through L.P.A. No. 1727 of 2010, but the same was dismissed
by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 27.07.2011 (Annexure P/11),
thereby attaining finality regarding the legality of his service
and appointment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
67/134
77. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that
the husband of the petitioner continued his service without
further hindrance and eventually superannuated on 30.06.2020
after completing his full tenure. Following his retirement, he
received his pensionary benefits until his demise on 21.03.2023.
Notably, even after his death, the respondent authorities
themselves issued a letter vide Memo No. 2250 dated
30.06.2023 (Annexure P/12), wherein the appointment of the
husband of the petitioner was explicitly held to be legal and
valid. This acknowledgement by the State further solidifies the
petitioner’s claim that her husband’s service was regularized and
recognized after multiple rounds of scrutiny by both the
departmental authorities and the Hon’ble High Court.
78. Lastly, Learned Counsel for the petitioner
firmly submits that the actions of the respondent authorities are
blatant violation of settled law, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief
Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur, issued Memo No. 2468 on
15.07.2023 (Annexure P/13), directing the stoppage of pension
for several retired or deceased employees, including the
husband of the petitioner. Consequent to this, the Incharge
Medical Officer of the Community Health Centre, Sahebganj,
issued Memo No. 332 dated 15.07.2023 (Annexure P/14)
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
68/134
requesting the Accountant General, Bihar, to stop the pension
payments. This arbitrary action was taken without any notice or
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who has been receiving
her family pension continuously since her husband’s death. Such
a sudden stoppage of pension, particularly after a prior official
declaration of the appointment’s validity, is most malafide and
arbitrary but the same is also contemptuous in nature thus in
clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NOS. 4/Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical
Officer, Muzaffarpur AND 5/the Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur.
79. The Learned Counsel for the respondents
submits that the husband of the petitioner, Late Harishchandra
Prasad, was purportedly appointed to the post of Basic Health
Worker vide Memo No. 3252 dated 28.12.1988 under the
signature of the then Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer,
Muzaffarpur. He further submits that upon a subsequent
inspection of the records, the service of the petitioner’s husband
was found to be based on illegal and forged documents.
Consequently, the respondent authorities issued a termination
order vide Memo No. 88 dated 11.01.2003. Although this initial
termination was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 3332 of 2003 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
69/134
set aside on 08.09.2003 solely on the technical grounds of a
violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court at that
time had specifically noted that the appointment was held to be
void ab-initio.
80. He further submits that the State, feeling
aggrieved, preferred an appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003,
which was heard with other analogous cases and disposed of
with a direction to the State to reconsider the cases of the
affected employees. In compliance with this judicial direction,
the State Government constituted a five-member committee to
individualize and classify the employees into three distinct
categories: those whose employment was secured on false and
forged documents, illegal appointments, and irregular
appointments. The husband of the petitioner was specifically
placed in the category of employment secured through false,
forged, and fabricated documents after a detailed enquiry report
was submitted on 31.12.2008.
81. Learned counsel for the respondents contends
that while approximately 91 cases classified as “irregular” were
eventually regularized in view of the directions in the Uma Devi
case, the appointment of the petitioner’s husband remained
categorized as “illegal” and “void ab-initio”. The subsequent
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
70/134
rounds of litigation, including C.W.J.C. No. 3819 of 2008 and
C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009, eventually led to the matter
reaching the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in
the cases of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad
(Civil Appeal No. 8649 of 2018) and State of Bihar & Ors. Vs.
Devendra Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019), allowed the
appeals filed by the State, thereby affirming the State’s position
regarding the illegality of such appointments.
82. Counsel for the respondents further submits
that the legal position regarding the petitioner’s husband’s
appointment has attained finality in light of the aforementioned
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Apex
Court clearly held that appointments which are void ab-initio do
not confer any right to the post or subsequent terminal benefits.
In strict adherence to these binding precedents, the Civil
Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur, issued the
impugned order vide Memo No. 2468 dated 15.07.2023,
directing the stoppage of pension for those employees whose
appointments were found to be illegal and void.
83. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner has distorted the factual matrix and suppressed the
material findings of the committee and the Hon’ble Apex Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
71/134
to rush to this Hon’ble Court. The respondents contends that
since the original appointment was illegal and secured through
forged documents, no right to a family pension survives, as the
very foundation of the service was non-existent in the eyes of
the law. Therefore, the actions taken by the respondent
authorities via Memo No. 2468 and Memo No. 332 are fully
justified, legally sound, and in complete harmony with the
directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The present writ
application, being devoid of merit, is fit to be rejected at the
stage of admission itself.
REJOINDER TO THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 5
84. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in
the rejoinder that the respondents’ reliance on the judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019
(State of Bihar vs. Devendra Sharma) and Civil Appeal No.
8649 of 2018 (State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad) is
entirely misplaced and misleading. The learned counsel
contends that these judgments were passed in personam and not
in rem, and since neither the petitioner nor her late husband was
a party to those specific proceedings before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the findings therein cannot be applied to strip
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
72/134
the petitioner of her vested rights to family pension. The
impugned order dated 15.07.2023, issued under the garb of
these Supreme Court judgments without any fresh enquiry or
notice to the petitioner, is therefore illegal, arbitrary, and void ab
initio, particularly because the husband’s own writ petition had
already been allowed and affirmed by the Division Bench years
prior.
85. The learned counsel further submits that the action
of the respondent authorities in stopping the pension is in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice, equity, and fair
play. It is submitted that before holding the husband’s
appointment illegal in the recent Enquiry Report, issued vide
letter no. 2328 dated 04.07.2023 just before the impugned
stoppage, no notice was ever served upon the petitioner or her
husband, nor were they given any opportunity of being heard.
This report was prepared behind their back, which is contrary to
the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Shridhar vs. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur (1990) and Basudeo Tiwari
vs. Sido Kanlu University (1998), which mandate that no person
should be condemned without a hearing, as the order of
appointment had conferred a vested right over decades of
service.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
73/134
86. Learned counsel further highlights that the
respondent authorities are adopting a discriminatory ‘pick and
choose’ policy, as evidenced by the case of one Uday Shankar
Prasad (Darban), whose termination was quashed in the same
common order dated 06.10.2009. Despite initial resistance, the
authorities were compelled to reinstate him and pay all
consequential benefits, including ACP/MACP and back wages,
following orders passed in MJC No. 3948 of 2013 on
30.11.2022 (Annexure-15) and subsequent payments on
14.12.2022 vide Memo No. 7689 (Annexure-16). Furthermore,
this Hon’ble Court in MJC No. 4797 of 2018, vide order dated
11.01.2024 (Annexure-17), has observed that the common order
of 06.10.2009 remains binding and final as it was never
challenged or annulled by any higher court in those specific
instances.
87. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the
husband of the petitioner fully satisfied all five criteria
incorporated by the Five Members Enquiry Committee for
scrutinizing the cases of affected employees in light of the order
dated 26.06.2006. It is emphasized that the respondent
authorities themselves acknowledged the legality of his
appointment as recently as 30.06.2023 vide Memo No. 2250,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
74/134
just weeks before the sudden stoppage of pension. The
subsequent stoppage vide Memo No. 2468 dated 15.07.2023 is
therefore a malafide exercise of power that ignores the finality
of previous judicial orders and the husband’s decades of
dedicated service. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the
immediate restoration of her family pension with all
consequential arrears.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO. 2/the Director-Chief (Disease Control
Public Healthy and Para Medical ) Health Service, Bihar, Patna.
88. The learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the present writ application, filed for the quashing of Memo
No. 2468 dated 15.07.2023 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-
Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur, and the consequential
Memo No. 332 dated 15.07.2023 issued by the Incharge
Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Sahebganj, is
devoid of merit. These orders directed the stoppage of the
family pension of the petitioner’s late husband, Harishchandra
Prasad, on the grounds that his original appointment was
illegal/forged appointment.
89. Learned counsel further submits that the
appointment of the petitioner’s husband as a Health Worker was
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
75/134
part of a series of illegal and forged appointments made by
regional authorities in the Health Department without
jurisdiction and in total disregard of constitutional mandates.
Upon discovery of these illegalities, several employees were
terminated, including the husband of the petitioner.
90. The Learned Counsel for the respondents
submits that the litigation history regarding these appointments
is extensive and has reached absolute finality through a series of
authoritative judicial pronouncements. Initially, the matter was
considered in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 (Purnendra Sulankit vs.
The State of Bihar), which was decided on 26.06.2006. In the
said judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the State
Government to constitute a Five-member Committee to
rigorously scrutinize the validity of all such appointments in
light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the landmark case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma
Devi. This judicial mandate was intended to separate valid
appointments from those that were inherently illegal or
fraudulent.
91. In strict compliance with the directions of this
Hon’ble Court, a five-member Committee was duly constituted,
which meticulously scrutinized the appointments and classified
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
76/134
them into distinct categories of ‘illegal’, ‘forged’, or ‘irregular’. It
is further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner’s
husband was specifically examined by the said committee and
was unequivocally found to be an “illegal appointment.” His
case was recorded at Sl. No. 44 of the committee’s
comprehensive report, which has been brought on record as
Annexure-R/1. This finding established that the very inception
of his service was fundamentally flawed and lacked the sanction
of law.
92. Following the committee’s findings, a batch of
writ petitions was filed in 2009 by various affected individuals
to challenge the enquiry report. Among these were CWJC No.
6575 of 2009 (Om Prakash vs. The State of Bihar) and the
petition filed by the husband of the petitioner, bearing CWJC
No. 3819 of 2008. While these petitions were initially allowed
on 06.10.2009, and the impugned enquiry reports were set aside
at that stage, the respondents contend that these orders did not
grant permanent immunity to the appointments, as they were
subject to further appellate scrutiny by the Division Bench and
the Hon’ble Apex Court.
93. The litigation subsequently moved into the
stage of Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), where the legal position
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
77/134
underwent further clarification. While LPA No. 1727 of 2010
(State vs. Harishchandra Prasad) was initially dismissed on
27.07.2011, other similar and analogous appeals, such as LPA
No. 566 of 2010 (State vs. Madhu Kumari) and LPA No. 200 of
2010 (State vs. Om Prakash), were heard and allowed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench on 24.09.2014. These subsequent
judgments effectively set aside the earlier orders of the Single
Judge and reaffirmed the State’s authority to act against
appointments that were found to be illegal upon detailed
committee scrutiny.
94. Finally, the learned counsel submits that the
entire controversy was put to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
which attained finality in the matter. In Civil Appeal No. 8649
of 2018 (State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad), decided on
30.11.2018 (Annexure-R/2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
allowed the State’s appeals and dismissed the writ petitions,
categorically holding that appointments which are void ab initio
do not confer any legal rights upon the incumbents. This
definitive legal position was further affirmed and reinforced in
Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 (State of Bihar vs. Devendra
Sharma) on 17.10.2019 (Annexure-R/3). Consequently, the
respondents maintain that the stoppage of pension is a necessary
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
78/134
legal consequence of these binding judicial precedents.
95. Learned counsel for respondent further
contends that since the husband of the petitioner was never a
validly appointed civil servant, no disciplinary proceedings were
required for the termination of his services or the subsequent
stoppage of pension benefits, as the appointment itself was non-
existent in the eyes of the law.
96. The impugned orders of 2023 were issued to
implement the finality of the legal position established by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. This is supported by further
administrative correspondence, including Letter No. 1008(4)
dated 11.07.2023, Corrigendum No. 1165(4) dated 04.08.2023,
and Letter No. 1311(4) dated 30.08.2023 (Annexure-R/4 series).
Additionally, similar recent judgments of this Hon’ble Court
dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure-R/5) and 19.08.2025 (Annexure-
R/6) have upheld the State’s action in such matters.
Consequently, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the writ petition be dismissed as the petitioner has no legal right
to claim a family pension based on an illegal and void
appointment.
CWJC NO. 18408 of 2023
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
79/134
97. The relief(s) sought for is as follows:-
“For issuance of a writ in the
nature of writ certiorari for quashing the
part of the letter with respect to the
petitioner issued vide memo no. 2998 dated
27.09.2023 under the signature of the Civil
Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer,
Madhubani as contained in Annexure- P14
by which the pension of the petitioner has
been stopped with effect from issuance of the
letter, without any notice to show cause to
him rather only by referring some orders of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which he was
not a party. And further a writ in the nature
of writ of mandamus directing the
respondent authorities to pay the pension to
the petitioner which is being paid to him
regularly till now since after his
superannuation from service. And/or pass
such other order/orders as this Hon’ble
Court may think fit and proper.”
Written arguments/oral submissions of the
petitioner in CWJC No. 18408 of 2023.
98. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Basic Health
Worker along with others vide letter issued under Memo No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
80/134
216 dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure P/1) in the pay scale of 535-
765 and was initially posted at the Primary Health Centre,
Singhwara, Darbhanga. It is submitted that although the
appointment letter described him as a voluntary worker, he was
in fact appointed afresh to the post. Subsequently, the petitioner
was transferred and placed at the disposal of the Civil Surgeon-
cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, by an order issued via
Memo No. 1003 dated 02.12.1987 under the signature of the
Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Darbhanga
Division, and was later posted against a vacant post in the
Primary Health Centre, Laukahi, Madhubani, via Memo No.
243 dated 15.12.1987. However, on 10.07.1995, the services of
138 persons, including the petitioner, were terminated by the
Civil Surgeon-cum-CMO, Madhubani, without any enquiry,
citing an order dated 22.09.1994 passed in CWJC No. 10464 of
1993, to which the petitioner was not a party. This termination
was subsequently stayed by Letter No. 124 dated 12.08.1996 of
the Regional Deputy Director, leading to the petitioner’s return
to service via Memo No. 2440 dated 10.10.1996.
99. The Learned Counsel further submits that a
show cause notice was later issued via Memo No. 1093 dated
27.05.2000 based on a committee report of which the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
81/134
was unaware, and despite the petitioner filing a detailed reply on
16.06.2000, his services were again terminated via Memo No.
1311 dated 21.06.2000 (Annexure P/2) on the erroneous ground
that no reply had been filed. Following a period of serious
illness due to a paralytic attack, the petitioner challenged this
termination in CWJC No. 4619 of 2006, wherein this Hon’ble
Court, by a common order and judgement dated 26.06.2006
passed in LPA No. 946 of 2003, and analogous cases directed
the authorities to reconsider the cases of the employees in light
of the principles of regularization settled in the Uma Devi case.
Despite these directions, the subsequent enquiry report held the
petitioner’s appointment illegal on the ground that he was
promoted from a voluntary worker, neither any show cause
notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner. On the other hand, Pradip Kumar Karn who was also
absorbed to the post of clerk from Voluntary Worker by order
issued vide memo no. 2787 dated 27.09.1989 (Anexxure P/3),
has been held to be irregular was reinstated in service by order
issued vide memo no. 1117(4) dated 20.09.2007 prompting a
further challenge in CWJC No. 8110 of 2009. By an order dated
06.10.2009 passed in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous
cases, the impugned enquiry report was quashed with directions
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
82/134
to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits,
highlighting a clear case of discrimination as other similarly
situated employees like Ashok Kumar Verma (Annexure P/4)
and Binod Narayan had already been reinstated via Memo No.
1117(4) dated 20.09.2007.
100. It is further submitted that in compliance with
the judicial order , a formal reinstatement order was finally
issued via Memo No. 3248 dated 22.10.2016 (Annexure P/10)
under the signature of the Civil Surgeon-cum-CMO,
Madhubani, granting the petitioner all salary and consequential
benefits from the date of termination. Following his
reinstatement, the petitioner served until his superannuation
from service on 31.10.2016, upon attaining the age of 60 years,
while posted as a Basic Health Worker at the Primary Health
Centre, Lakauhi, Madhubani. Subsequent to his retirement, the
respondent authorities sanctioned and paid all post-retiral
benefits, including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GPF,
and Group Insurance, acknowledging his status as a permanent
employee. The petitioner continued to receive his monthly
pension regularly for several years until the sudden and arbitrary
interference by the respondent authorities in the year 2023.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
83/134
101. The Learned Counsel submits that the respondent
authorities issued the impugned order via Memo No. 2998 dated
27.09.2023 (Annexure P/11), abruptly stopping the petitioner’s
pension without any prior enquiry, proceeding, or opportunity of
hearing, which is a blatant violation of the principles of natural
justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The
respondents cited Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 and Civil
Appeal No. 8649 of 2018 as justification, despite the petitioner
not being a party to those proceedings and the judgments therein
being in personam rather than in rem. It is contended that the
petitioner’s rights, having been settled through multiple rounds
of litigation and his subsequent retirement as a permanent
employee, cannot be divested by an administrative order.
Furthermore, the action is highly discriminatory as other
individuals such as Arun Kumar Mishra and Surendra Kumar
Mahto continue to receive their pensions, and even those who
were parties to the Civil Appeals, such as Surendra Prasad,
remain unaffected, thereby rendering the impugned order
against the petitioner mala fide, arbitrary, and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
NO. 4/the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
84/134
Madhubani.
102. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4
submits that the petitioner’s initial appointment to the post of
Basic Health Worker, purportedly made via Memo No. 216
dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure P/1), is inherently illegal, void ab
initio. It is contended that the appointment letter itself
categorically describes the petitioner as a “voluntary worker,” a
designation for which no sanctioned post exists within the State
Government’s cadre. Furthermore, this appointment was made
without following any transparent or constitutional recruitment
process, such as the issuance of a public advertisement,
adherence to reservation policies, or the conduct of a
competitive selection procedure. The petitioner also failed to
demonstrate that he possessed the mandatory technical
qualifications and specialized training required for the post of
Basic Health Worker at the time of his induction. Consequently,
the petitioner’s entry into service was a “backdoor entry,” which
does not confer any legal right to hold a civil post or claim the
status of a permanent government servant.
103. The Learned Counsel further submits that the
legality of the petitioner’s service was subject to a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
85/134
comprehensive review by a Five-Man Inquiry Committee,
which was constituted under the directions of this Hon’ble Court
and whose findings have been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The said Committee scrutinized the records of thousands
of employees in the Health Department and explicitly found the
petitioner’s appointment to be illegal, placing his name at Serial
No. 228 of the official Inquiry Report. These findings have
attained legal finality following the authoritative judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8649 of 2018
(State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Devendra Sharma) and Civil Appeal
No. 7879 of 2019. In these landmark rulings, the Apex Court
held that appointments made against non-existent posts, by
incompetent authorities, or without following the due process of
law are nullities. The court further clarified that any subsequent
orders of reinstatement or regularization, if based on such void
appointments, are equally unsustainable and cannot be used to
shield an illegality.
104. It is further submitted that in light of the specific
directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent
authorities were legally bound to rectify the error and stop the
disbursement of public funds to individuals whose appointments
were judicially determined to be illegal. The impugned order
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
86/134
issued via Memo No. 2998 dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure P/11)
was passed in strict compliance with paragraph 36 of the
judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019, which explicitly
states that such appointees are not entitled to salary, pension, or
any other retiral benefits. Since the petitioner’s very inception in
service was fraudulent and void, the principles of natural justice
or the protections under Article 311 of the Constitution of India
are not attracted, as no vested right can flow from a void act.
The fact that the petitioner managed to secure reinstatement in
2016 and briefly drew a pension was the result of an
administrative oversight or mistake, which the State is fully
empowered to correct at any stage. Therefore, the stoppage of
pension is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but a necessary
execution of the law as settled by the highest court of the land,
rendering the present writ petition devoid of any merit.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.
2/the Director in Chief Health Service, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
105. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
submits that the petitioner’s initial appointment as a Basic Health
Worker, purportedly made via Memo No. 216 dated 26.12.1985, is
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
87/134
fundamentally illegal and void ab initio. The appointment was
made against a non-existent post of “voluntary worker,” which is
not a sanctioned cadre post under the State Government, and was
executed without any public advertisement or competitive
selection process. The Five-Man Inquiry Committee, whose
findings were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 8649 of 2018 (State of Bihar vs. Devendra Sharma),
specifically identified the petitioner’s appointment at Serial No.
228 as illegal. Consequently, the petitioner never acquired the
status of a valid government servant, and any benefits previously
granted were based on a legal nullity.
106. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that
the stoppage of the petitioner’s pension via Memo No. 2998 dated
27.09.2023 is a direct and mandatory implementation of the law
settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In Civil Appeal No. 7879 of
2019, the Court explicitly ruled that individuals whose
appointments are found to be illegal are not entitled to any
monetary benefits, including salary or pension. Since the
petitioner’s entry into service was a “backdoor entry” lacking
statutory backing, he cannot claim protection under Article 311 of
the Constitution or the principles of natural justice. The State is
under a legal obligation to stop the drainage of public exchequer
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
88/134
funds to those whose appointments have been judicially declared
void, and therefore, the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor
malafide.
107. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the Learned
Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner’s plea of
discrimination and “pick and choose” is legally untenable. The
petitioner has cited names of other individuals, such as Arun
Kumar Mishra and Surendra Kumar Mahto, who are allegedly still
receiving pensions; however, it is a settled principle of law that
Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept and cannot be
invoked to perpetuate an illegality. Even if certain individuals are
erroneously receiving benefits, the petitioner cannot claim a “right
to equality” in illegality to demand the continuation of his own
unauthorized pension. Each case is governed by the specific
findings of the Inquiry Committee and the subsequent mandates of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
108. Furthermore, it is submitted in the supplementary
counter affidavit that the petitioner’s contention that the Supreme
Court judgments in the Devendra Sharma and related cases are in
personam is factually and legally incorrect. Paragraph 45 of the
judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 clearly indicates that
the ruling is in rem, as it set aside all similar orders passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
89/134
High Court regarding these illegal appointments in the Health
Department. The petitioner’s status was specifically adjudicated by
the Committee as illegal, and that finding has attained finality. As
such, the respondent authorities have acted within their jurisdiction
to rectify an administrative error and comply with judicial
mandates, necessitating the dismissal of the present writ petition.
REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
109. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by way of
rejoinder to the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner’s
appointment as a Basic Health Worker was the result of a valid
selection process and was not a “voluntary” engagement, and any
claim to the contrary by the respondents is factually incorrect and
denied. It is contended that the respondent authorities have
adopted a “pick and choose” and discriminatory approach, as
several individuals whose appointments were also scrutinized by
the Inquiry Committee such as Pradeep Kumar Karn, Ashok
Kumar Verma, and Binod Narayan have been reinstated in service
despite being similarly or even more irregularly situated.
Furthermore, other employees appointed under the same order
(Memo No. 216 dated 26.12.1985), specifically Sri Arun Kumar
Mishra and Sri Surendra Kumar Mahto, have superannuated and
continue to receive their pensionary benefits without any
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
90/134
interruption, making the stoppage of the petitioner’s pension a
clear instance of hostile discrimination and a violation of Article
14 of the Constitution.
110. It is further submitted in the rejoinder that the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Devendra
Sharma case and Kirti Naryan case (dated 30.11.2018 and
17.10.2019) were passed in personam and do not bind the
petitioner, who was never a party to those proceedings. The
respondents’ reliance on these judgments to unilaterally stop the
petitioner’s pension is legally untenable, especially since the
petitioner’s right to reinstatement was already finalized by this
Hon’ble Court in earlier litigation (CWJC No. 8393 of 2009).
This is further supported by the case of Sri Uday Shankar
Prasad (MJC No. 3948 of 2022), where the State was compelled
to pay full arrears of salary and benefits after its attempts to
justify termination were rejected by the court. The impugned
order dated 27.09.2023 was issued without any fresh inquiry,
notice, or opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the
principles of natural justice and rendering the action of the
respondent authorities totally illegal and void ab initio.
CWJC NO. 351 of 2024
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
91/134
111. The relief(s) sought for by the petitioner is as
follows:-
“For a direction to the
respondents concern to grant pension to the
petitioner who has superannuated from the
post of Basic health worker on 31.1.2022
and after he retirement all the retirement
benefit have given to the petitioner even the
pension was also paying but all of sudden
without any show cause/notices the pension
of the petitioner has stopped referring of
Memo No. 2468 dated 17.5.23 issued by the
Respondent Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur and
the letter No. 1008(4) dated 15.7.23 issued
by the Director in Chief, Patna and also
memo No. 259 dated 13.7.23 issued by the
Regional Additional Director Muzaffarpur in
implementation of the two order passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the
petitioner was not a party in that case.
And/Or pass such any order/orders,
writ/writs, direction/directions for which the
petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
112. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
92/134
that the petitioner, Satyadeo Singh, was appointed to the post of
Basic Health Worker on 03.06.1989, vide Memo No. 1720
(Annexure P/1) issued by the then Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief
Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur. This appointment was made
against a sanctioned and vacant post of the Basic Health worker
at Primary Health Centre Kanti, Muzaffarpur. Following his
appointment, the petitioner joined his duties at the Primary
Health Centre, Kanti, Muzaffarpur on 05.06.1989 and
discharged his responsibilities with sincerity throughout his
career. It is further submitted that during his service period, the
petitioner’s salary was duly fixed and verified by the District
Accounts Officer, Muzaffarpur, who determined that the salary
fixation was correct, leading to the formal confirmation of his
service. The petitioner also became eligible for and received the
benefits of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd MACP scheme based on his
satisfactory performance. On this basis, his pay scale was
officially certified by the Respondent District Accounts Officer
on 24.12.2021 (Annexure P/2). The Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner further submits that the petitioner served the Health
Department for over three decades and eventually
superannuated from his post on 31.01.2022. After his retirement,
the respondent authorities processed and sanctioned all his
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
93/134
retiral benefits, including his regular pension. The learned
counsel highlights that the Respondent No. 6 issued Memo No.
415 dated 15.07.2023 (Annexure P/3) abruptly stopped the
petitioner’s pension followed under illegal/forged/irregular, this
action was purportedly taken in implementation of orders passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8649 of
2018 and Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019, despite the petitioner
not being a party to those proceedings.
113. Further, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner
states and submits that on 16.5.23 a letter has been issued, vide
letter No. 722 (4) under the signature of the office on Special
duty, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna and another letter No.
891(4) dated 20.6.23 has been issued by the Director in Chief
(Disease Control, Public Health Para Medical) Health service,
Patna, to the Civil Surgeon cum Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur
by which it has been asked to submit a enquiry report of the
employee working in the different health services of the district
of Muzaffarpur. The respondent civil Surgeon cum Chief
Medical Officer based on the enquiry report received from the
Regional Additional Director Health Service, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur sent consolidated enquiry report prepared in a
prescribed format to the Director in Chief (Disease Control,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
94/134
Public Health Para Medical) with a joint signature of the
Regional Additional Director enquiry report dated 04.07.2023
(Anexxure-P/4). In the aforesaid report the name of the
petitioner has been mentioned at Serial No.19 and the nature of
the services have found to be valid. Despite his service being
valid, the stoppage of pension by the respondent authorities
without serving any notice to the petitioner has caused the
petitioner great hardship, prompting him to file a formal
representation before the authorities on 02.08.2023 (Annexure
P/5), which remained unaddressed by the respondent authorities,
hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the
restoration of his pension and the quashing of the illegal orders.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
NO. 3/the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur AND 8/The District
Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur.
114. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 8
submits that these respondents are neither the competent
authorities for the redressal of the petitioner’s grievances nor are
they directly concerned with the actual stoppage of his pension,
as the petitioner was drawing his pension from the Begusarai
Treasury and not from the Muzaffarpur Treasury. It is submitted
that while the In-charge Medical Officer of the Primary Health
Centre, Kanti, Muzaffarpur, initiated a request for the stoppage
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
95/134
of pension via Letter No. 415 dated 15.07.2023 (Annexure-
R/A), the final modification of pension data and the cessation of
payments effective from October 2023 were carried out by the
Treasury Officer, Begusarai, following correspondence with the
Accountant General, Patna. The answering respondents further
clarified that the role of the District Accounts Officer,
Muzaffarpur, is strictly limited to verifying the correctness and
accuracy of pay fixations made by the DDO and does not extend
to certifying the genuineness or legitimacy of an employee’s
initial appointment. Consequently, since the petitioner’s PPO
was issued for the Begusarai Treasury (Annexure-R/A/1) and
the administrative actions were based on departmental directives
from the Health Department, Respondent Nos. 3 and 8 are not
related to the core issues of the instant writ and have no role in
the restoration of the benefits sought by the petitioner.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 5/the
Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur.
115. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 05 submits
that the present writ application is devoid of merit as the
petitioner’s initial appointment to the post of Basic Health
Worker on 03.06.1989, vide Memo No. 1720, was void ab initio
and lacked legal sanctity. It is submitted that the service of the
petitioner was initially terminated by the Civil Surgeon-cum-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
96/134
Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur, on 13.01.2004, on the
ground that the appointment was illegal. This order of
termination was subsequently challenged by the petitioner and
others in CWJC No. 7145 of 2004, which was finally heard and
passed in favor of the petitioner, but the State preferred an
appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, numbered as LPA No.
3355 of 2004, which was disposed of with certain directions to
the State to decide the case of the petitioners and other. It is
further submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble
Court in LPA No. 946 of 2003, the State government constituted
a Five-Member Committee to examine the validity of such
appointments and classify employees into three categories:
those who secured employment on false/forged documents,
those with illegal appointments, and those with irregular
appointments. After that an enquiry report dated 31.12.2008 was
submitted, wherein the name of the petitioner was explicitly
placed in the category of “Illegal Appointment,” thus,
appointment of the petitioner being void ab initio and was
cancelled and the services of the concerned employees were
terminated. Although the petitioner challenged this enquiry
report in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and was reinstated in service
during the pendency of the litigation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
97/134
116. The learned counsel highlights that the legal
status of such illegal appointments was finally adjudicated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs.
Kirti Narayan Prasad (Civil Appeal No. 8649 of 2018) and
State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Devendra Sharma (Civil Appeal No.
7879 of 2019). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide orders dated
17.10.2019 and 30.11.2018 respectively (Annexure-A series),
and in the light of above judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex
Court which has attain finality in the case of the petitioner. It is
submitted by the Learned Counsel that in light of the Hon’ble
Apex Court judgment, the Director-in-Chief, Health Services,
Bihar, issued Letter No. 1008(4) dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-
B), to direct all Civil Surgeons and other concerned authorities
to terminate the services of those persons whose appointments
were held to be illegal or forged. Consequently, vide Memo No.
2468 dated 15.07.2023, (Annexure-C) issued by Civil Surgeon
cum Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur, terminating the
petitioner’s service as the appointment of the petitioner was
found to be illegal and not followed the due process and also the
committee examined the correctness of appointment and found
illegal. Finally, the Learned Counsel for the respondent contends
that the petitioner has distorted the factual matrix and
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
98/134
suppressed material facts regarding the “Illegal” classification of
his appointment by the Five-Member Committee, while
approaching this Hon’ble Court. It is stated that since the
appointment itself was found to be void ab initio and the
findings of illegality have attained finality through the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot
claim a vested right to pension, as pension is a reward for
“lawful” and valid service. Therefore, the action taken by the
respondent authorities via Memo No. 2468 dated 15.07.2023
(Annexure-C) is legally sustainable and consistent with the law
of the land, and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.
10/Accounant General, Bihar, Patna.
117. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 10
(Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Patna) submits that the
petitioner, Shri Satyadeo Singh, retired from the post of Basic
Health Worker on 31.01.2022, and his pensionary benefits,
including pension, gratuity, and Commuted Value of Pension
(CVP), were duly authorized following the receipt of the
sanction order from the In-charge Medical Officer, Community
Health Centre, Kanti, Muzaffarpur, as evidenced by Letter No.
01 dated 01.01.2022 (Annexure-B). It is submitted that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
99/134
respondent’s office subsequently received a communication
from the same In-charge Medical Officer requesting the
stoppage of the petitioner’s pension, following which the office
issued instructions to the Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur, via
Letter No. 484 dated 28.08.2023 and Letter No. 1479 dated
16.10.2023 (Annexures C and D). This action was taken in light
of the administrative decision contained in Letter No. 2468
dated 15.07.2023 (Annexure-A), issued in compliance with the
directives of the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar. The
learned counsel for the respondent contends that the matter is
essentially administrative in nature, pertaining to the department
concerned, and that they have already requested the In-charge
Medical Officer, Kanti, Muzaffarpur, to apprise them of the final
departmental decision via Letter No. 2250 dated 31.01.2024
(Annexure-E). Consequently, it is maintained in the counter
affidavit that there is no laches on the part of the Accountant
General’s office, as they have acted strictly in accordance with
the sanctions and requests made by the competent departmental
authorities. The counsel representing for the Respondent-State
in all these writ petitions have adopted the arguments advanced
by Sri Manish Kumar, leaned counsel for the Respondent-State
in the lead case of Pawan Kumar Jha in CWJC No. 17271 of 2023.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
100/134
CONSIDERATION
118. On the basis of the materials available on
record and the arguments advanced by the respective parties in
all the cases, the following issues emerged for consideration,
which are accordingly, being framed for adjudication of the
disputed issues, which are as under:-
Issue 1: Whether the State can retrospectively
alter a retired employee’s status of appointment as “forged”
or “illegal” after the successful completion of a full tenure of
service, the formal issuance of a Pension Payment Order
(PPO), and the grant of all the retiral benefits, considering
that pension is a vested right in the nature of “property”
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and not a
mere bounty at the discretion of the Government?
The status of an employee as a permanent servant is
formally crystallized and recognized by the State once they have
superannuated and been issued a Pension Payment Order (PPO).
After an individual has completed their full tenure of service
and the government has sanctioned and granted pension and all
the retiral benefits such as GPF, leave encashment and gratuity
etc., it is legally impermissible to retrospectively change/reduce
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
101/134
their status of appointment to “forged” or “illegal”. The issuance
of a PPO signifies a finality to the employer-employee relationship,
confirming that the individual served as a valid employee in the
service, and this settled status cannot be unilaterally upended
after retirement.
State of Jharkhand & Ors v. Jitendra Kumar
Srivastav & Anr AIR 2013 SC 3383, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed as under:
“7. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension
are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by
dint of his long. continuous, faithful and un-blemished
service.
….the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v.
State of Bihar and Ors .wherein this Court authoritatively
ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does
not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is
governed by the rules and a Government servant
coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It
was further held that the grant of pension does not
depend upon any one’s discretion. It is only for the
purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to
service and other allied maters that it may be necessary
for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the
right to receive pension flows to the officer not because
of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view
was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. V. Iqbal
Singh (1976) IILLJ 377SC”.
8. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
102/134
employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right
to property cannot be taken away without the due
process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 A of
the Constitution of India.”
Issue 2: Whether the principles of estoppel and
acquiescence preclude the State from challenging an
appointment after four decades of continuous service and
formal ratification?
The principles of estoppel and acquiescence preclude
the State from challenging the validity of an appointment after
approximately four decades of continuous service. During this
long tenure, the employee was not only allowed to work but was
also granted promotions and had their service formally ratified
through reinstatement orders issued with the consent of the
concerned authorities. By failing to raise objections during the
active service period and by actively affirming the employee’s
position through administrative actions, the State has waived its
right to contest the appointment, as the employee has spent their
entire professional life relying on the State’s recognition of their
role.
Moreover, when the issues according to the State
authorities were already crystallized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Devendra Sharma (Supra) and as also in the case of Kirti
Narayan (Supra) and in the opinion of the authorities of the State,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
103/134
the enquiry committee report was approved by the Hon’ble Apex
Court and the same was equally applicable to all such employees
whose names were forming part of the said report as formulated by
the Five Men Committee in the case of Purnendu Solankit (supra)
(though, factually, there were only three members in the
Committee) then there was no occasion for them to have
allowed all these petitioners to have continued in service till the
date of retirement and further to have also granted them their
pension and pensionary benefits upon their successful
superannuation while the aforementioned judgments of Hon’ble
Apex Court had already been passed during their service period
itself.
Issue 3: Whether the State can legally challenge the validity
of an appointment to infringe upon vested pension rights
after the employer-employee relationship has been severed
through unconditional superannuation, and whether the
“termination” of a retired employee’s service is a concept
recognized by law in the absence of a formal departmental
proceeding?
The unconditional superannuation of an employee,
followed by the sanctioning of retiral benefits and the issuance
of a regular pension, creates a definitive legal severance of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
104/134
employer-employee relationship. Any attempt by the State to
hold the initial appointment illegal or forged the service of a
retiree without any show cause is a legal fallacy, as one cannot
terminate a relationship that has already ceased to exist. In the
absence of a departmental proceeding initiated during active
service, the persons are no longer a “delinquent employee” but a
“pensioner” whose rights are protected under Article 300A.
Consequently, the State cannot retrospectively apply service-
tenure remedies to a pensioner to bypass the specific procedural
requirements and statutory protections afforded to retired
persons, under the Bihar Pension Rule, 1950.
In Chandra Kishore Sharma v. The State of Bihar &
Ors (CWJC No. 13706 of 2023), the Hon’ble Coordinate
Bench held:
“Once an employee is allowed to superannuate
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
105/134done. 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 cannot be said to be
initiated merely on issuance of a show-cause notice.”
Issue 4: Whether the judgments of the Apex Court
in the Devendra Sharma and Kirti Narayan cases
constitute in rem mandates applicable to all employees of the
Health Department, or are they in personam rulings limited
strictly to the litigants involved, thereby precluding the State
from applying their adverse findings and its implication to
the petitioners a non-party under the doctrines of natural
justice?
The judicial rulings of the Apex Court in the Devendra
Sharma and Kirti Narayan cases are strictly in
personam judgments, meaning they are limited to the specific
litigants involved in those particular disputes and do not
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
106/134
constitute in rem mandates applicable to every employee within
the Health Department. The language used by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in its judgments are remarkably very clear and
specific, repeatedly referring to “the writ petitioners” and “the
instant cases” in the context of the specific batch of appeals
before it. This indicates that the Hon’ble Apex court was
adjudicating the individual service records and the specific
findings of the State Committee regarding those particular
litigants. Consequently, these judgments cannot be applied as a
blanket mandate to strip away the settled constitutional rights of
other employees, who were not parties to those proceedings and
whose appointments were not the subject of that specific
judicial scrutiny.
In State of Bihar & Ors v. Kirti Narayan Prasad (2019) 13
SCC 250 the Hon’ble Apex Court held:
“16. In the instant cases, the writ petitioners have filed
the petitions before the High Court with a specific prayer
to regularise their service and to set aside the order of
termination of their services. They have also challenged
the report submitted by the State Committee. The real
controversy is whether the writ petitioners were legally
and validly appointed. The finding of the State Committee
is that many writ petitioners had secured appointment by
producing fake or forged appointment letter or had been
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
107/134inducted in government service surreptitiously by the
Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer concerned by
issuing a posting order. The writ petitioners are the
beneficiaries of illegal orders made by the Civil Surgeon-
cum-Chief Medical Officer. They were given notice to
establish the genuineness of their appointment and to
show-cause. None of them could establish the
genuineness or legality of their appointment before the
State Committee. The State Committee on appreciation of
the materials on record has opined that their appointment
was illegal and void ab initio. We do not find any ground
to disagree with the finding of the State Committee. In the
circumstances, the question of regularisation of their
services by invoking para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi
(3)4 does not arise. Since the appointment of the
petitioners is ab initio void, they cannot be said to be the
civil servants of the State. Therefore, holding disciplinary
proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution
or under any other disciplinary rules shall not arise.
17. Therefore, the civil appeals filed by the writ
petitioners in the aforesaid f batch of appeals are hereby
dismissed. The civil appeals filed by the State of Bihar
are allowed and the writ petitions filed before the High
Court of Patna in the said cases are hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.”
The distinction between judgments in rem and in
personam rests fundamentally on the principle that any
individual who could potentially be affected by a judicial
decision is entitled to appear and assert their own rights by
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
108/134
becoming an actual party to the proceedings. While
judgments in rem are intended to declare the status of the
subject matter and render it as such for the broader peace of
society ensuring that social relations are not left in doubt as this
doctrine is primarily designed to provide clarity and finality
through a solemn adjudication. Such a situation typically arises
when a decision involves broad policy matters, like a scheme of
regularization, where the intention is to give a benefit to all
similarly situated persons regardless of whether they
specifically approached the court. In those instances, an
obligation is cast upon the authorities to extend the benefit of
the pronouncement universally. However, this logic cannot be
inverted to justify the summary deprivation of a non-party’s
rights; the public policy of maintaining social stability actually
supports the petitioner, whose long-settled status should not be
disturbed by judgments that were never intended to act as
universal mandates for the forfeiture of earned pensions, much
less, when these issues of grant of pension or its forfeiture was
not a part of adjudication by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The distinction between judgments in rem and in
personam was further clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
109/134
and Others (2015) 1 SCC 347, where it was observed:
“22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that
benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and
would be violative of Article 14.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those
cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was
judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly
situated persons, whether they approached the court or not.
With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the
authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly
situated persons.”
As implied by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar
Srivastava, the fundamental motive behind treating a judgment
as in rem is to maintain equality under Article 14 and avoid
unnecessary litigation by extending benefits to all similarly
situated persons. However, this logic cannot be inverted to mean
that a judgment which infringes the rights of a specific set of
litigants can be used as a universal mandate to infringe the
settled constitutional rights of others. Article 14 of the
Constitution embodies the concept of positive equality alone
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
110/134
and not negative equality. Therefore, while the State is obligated
to extend judicial benefits to all similarly situated employees to
avoid discrimination, it is constitutionally barred from using an
in-personam judgment of termination or pension stoppage
against one set of employees to justify the summary deprivation
of another’s livelihood. To deny the petitioner their pension
based on adverse findings in cases where they had no
opportunity to defend their specific service record is a violation
of both the principles of natural justice and the mandate of equal
treatment under Articles 14 and 16.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Poonam v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others (2016) 2 SCC 779 reaffirmed that,
“The basic principle behind the doctrine of natural justice is
that no order should be passed behind the back of a person who
is to be adversely affected by the order. The principle behind the
proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 that the Code of Civil Procedure
enjoins it and the said principle is also applicable to the writs.”
This principle, ensures that a person cannot be bound by a
judgment rendered in a case where they had no opportunity to
defend their specific service record or the unique circumstances
of their own appointment. Since the present petitioners were not
parties to the Devendra Sharma or Kirti Narayan litigations,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
111/134
those judgments remain in personam and cannot be used to
justify the stoppage of their pension. As per the settled
proposition of law, Article 14 of the Constitution embodies the
concept of positive equality alone and not negative equality.
Consequently, the State cannot claim a right to treat the
petitioner’s appointment as forged simply because other
appointments were found to be so in a different litigation, as
those in personam rulings do not bind non-parties.
Issue 5: Whether an appointment allegedly secured
on forged documents or an illegal appointment and the
subsequent continuation in service under such an
appointment can be challenged or treated as void by the
State after the employee has successfully completed their
entire tenure of service and superannuated?
A continuous service record of over forty years
creates a powerful legal presumption of validity that must
override the “void ab initio” doctrine. When an employee has
retired after a lifetime of service, the sheer duration of their
tenure creates an equitable right that protects them from being
rendered a “non-entity” by the State. In such instances, the long-
standing recognition of service by the government effectively
cures any technical or procedural defects that may have existed
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
112/134
at the time of entry, ensuring that a life’s work is not invalidated
by administrative hindsight. In a similar case, the legal position
regarding long-standing service has been significantly
strengthened by the Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar Sinha v.
State of Bihar (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2339, which
established that an employee who has served regularly for a
substantial period acquires the status of a permanent employee
and cannot be terminated based on mere bald allegations of
fraud documents or missing records without holding a formal
enquiry, the relevant para of the judgement is quoted
hereinbelow:
“22. In view of the above, in absence of any foundation of
fraud in the pleading or in the counter affidavit, we are
not inclined to accept such plea of fraud. Moreover, the
reason of termination as mentioned in the order
impugned is also contrary to the documents placed on
record. This is a case wherein after appointment the
appellant has worked for more than 16 years regularly
and was regularly paid salary by the department, which
is a fact. As such, he has acquired the status of permanent
employee. Thereafter, such issuance of show cause notice
by merely referring to one LPA and the correspondence of
the department regarding non-issuance of appointment
order is improper. Because, a mere correspondence
stating non-issuance is not sufficient to prove an
allegation of fraud and warrant termination from service.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
113/134In our view, mere bald statement that the appointment
was based on forged document or on fraud is not
sufficient. In case after such a long time of service, if the
department was of the opinion that the order of
appointment is not available on record, an enquiry should
have been conducted for looking into the alleged forgery
in issuance of the appointment order. In absence of any
such enquiry, such allegations of fraud and fabrication
leading to termination are unjustified.”
Issue 6: Whether the immediate stoppage
of pension without a prior show-cause notice or a fair
hearing constitutes a flagrant violation of the Principles of
Natural Justice, particularly when such an action infringes
upon the constitutional rights of a retired individual and
deprives them of their sole means of subsistence?
The abrupt stoppage of a pension without the issuance of a
prior show-cause notice or a fair hearing is a flagrant violation
of the Principles of Natural Justice. These principles are
fundamental and must be followed even in cases where an
appointment is alleged to be forged, as the consequences of such
an allegation are infringing constitutional rights of the
individuals. The right to be heard is an essential safeguard
against arbitrary state action, ensuring that an individual is not
deprived of their sole means of post-retirement subsistence
without a proper inquiry into the facts of their specific case.In
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
114/134the case of Shravan Kumar Jha State of Bihar reported in
AIR 1991, S.C. 309, the Apex Court in fact while dealing with a
similar situation had held that even where it was held that the
principle of natural justice had to be complied even where it was
alleged that the appointment of the persons was made by an
incompetent authority.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jogendrasinhji
Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9 SCC 1 that the term
“entitled to defend” confers an inherent right to a person if he or
she is affected or is likely to be affected by an order to be passed
by any legal forum, for there would be violation of natural
justice. The principle of audi alteram partem has its own
sanctity but the said principle of natural justice is not always put
in straitjacket formula. That apart, a person or an authority must
have a legal right or right in law to defend or assail. Natural
justice is not an unruly horse. Its applicability has to be
adjudged regard being had to the effect and impact of the order
and the person who claims to be affected; and that is where the
concept of necessary party becomes significant.
Issue 7: Whether the State is legally precluded by
the mandatory four-year statutory barrier under the proviso
to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules from initiating
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
115/134disciplinary proceedings or withholding pensionary benefits
based on allegations of a forged appointment occurring
several decades prior, especially in the absence of any formal
finding of “grave misconduct” or “pecuniary loss” during
the period of service?
Admittedly, all these petitioners were allowed to
successfully complete their tenure, upon which they were
appointed and subsequently, reinstated in service upon
interference of the Hon’ble Court and after having attained the
age of superannuation was allowed to superannuate from service
and their pension and family pension with all pensionary
benefits including commuted valued pension was sanctioned.
According to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules,
the State lacks the legal authority to stop or withhold a pension
unless there is a formal finding of “grave misconduct” or
“pecuniary loss” caused to the government during the period of
service and the departmental inquiry must be initiated within
four years from the date of misconduct or pecuniary loss. In
cases where the employee has retired without any departmental
proceedings or evidence of misconduct, the summary stoppage
of pensionary benefits is a direct violation of statutory
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
116/134protections. The pension is a hard-earned right and a form of
“deferred portion of compensation” that cannot be withheld
without adhering to the strict conditions of the pension rules.
Jagannath Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors LPA No. 1173
of 2018
3.”….That apart, disciplinary proceedings cannot be
initiated on the alleged allegation that appellant had
produced fake documents at the time of his initial
appointment in the year 1983 and further to deduct/cut
his pension and it is not permissible in the light of Bihar
Pension Rules which prohibit taking any action in respect
of 4 years old alleged incident. In the present case, the
alleged incident is stated to be on 12.08.1983, the date on
which appellant was appointed.”
State of Bihar & Others v. Mohd. Idris Ansari 1995
Supp (3) SCC 56
“In the present case, the respondent retired on 31-1-1993
and the show-cause notice under Rule 139(a) & (b) was
issued on 27-9-1993 on the ground of grave misconduct
and not on the ground that service record of the
pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory. It was issued
by the State Government as sanctioning authority. It had,
therefore, to be read with Rule 43(b). Such notice
therefore, could cover any misconduct if committed
within 4 years prior to 27-9-1993 meaning thereby it
should have been committed during the period from 26-9-
1989 up-to 31-1-1993 when the respondent retired. On a
conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139(a) there is
no escape from the conclusion that as the alleged
misconduct was committed by the respondent prior to 4
years from the date on which the show-cause notice dated
27-9-1993 was issued, the appellant authority had no
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
117/134
power to invoke Rule 139(a) and (b) against the
respondent on the ground of proved misconduct.
Consequently, it has to be held that proceedings under
Rule 139 were wholly incompetent.”
In pursuance of the above precedents, it can be noted
that the four-year statutory barrier mandated by the proviso to
Rule 43(b) has long since elapsed from the date of the
petitioner’s initial appointment, rendering any subsequent
departmental inquiry into the alleged forged or illegal nature of
that appointment legally impermissible. Relying on the Md
Idris Ansari (supra) and Jagannath Jha (supra) judgment, it is
clear that it is not permissible for the State for initiating
disciplinary proceedings or effecting deductions from a pension
based on allegations related to the appointment of service
several decades ago.
CONCLUSION
119. On close scrutiny of facts and judgments
brought on record for consideration and after giving thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced by the petitioners and
respondents, this Court finds that the judgments rendered by the
Apex Court in the Devendra Sharma and Kirti Narayan cases,
clearly did not cover the specific case of the petitioner. Had the
ratio laid down in those cases been equally applicable to the
petitioner’s specific appointment, it would have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
118/134
implemented immediately to prevent them from completing
their full tenure of service until the date of superannuation as the
state respondent were well aware about the aforesaid judgments.
The fact that the petitioners were permitted to complete their
entire career and were initially granted their pension which was
abruptly stopped years later by referring to the aforementioned
judgments, further justifies the conclusion that these rulings do
not deal with the issues of these specific petitioners. Therefore,
the stoppage of pension after it had already been sanctioned and
paid upon superannuation is legally unsustainable, as the State
cannot retrospectively apply judicial findings that did not
disturb the petitioner’s status during their active service or at the
time of their retirement.
120. Furthermore, the judgments in Devendra
Sharma and Kirti Narayan are strictly in personam and are only
binding inter parties between the specific litigants involved. The
principle of a judgment in rem is governed by the fact that such
orders grant benefits to the public at large or to all similarly
situated persons; however, the cases referred to by the State do
not decide any such universal benefits that would allow their
findings to be applied equally to all the petitioners. Since these
petitioners were neither a party to those litigations nor given an
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
119/134
opportunity to defend their record within that context, applying
those findings now would significantly prejudice their settled
constitutional rights. Because these judgments do not constitute
a universal mandate, the State is precluded from using them as a
tool to bypass the legal protections afforded to a retired
employee, whose service was formally recognized and ratified
by the government for decades.
121. It is also important to note that the cases of
the present petitioners are fundamentally distinct from the ratio
laid down in LPA No. 709 of 2023 (State of Bihar & ors v.
Deepak Kumar), as well as the two aforesaid judgments of the
Apex Court, as the core issues of the judgments were on the
procedural requirements for the termination of services, while
the case of these petitioners involve issues of stoppage of
pension and pensionary benefits already granted to them.
Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above judgments is not
applicable to the case of these petitioners as they continued in
service till the date of superannuation on the strength of judicial
intervention by this Court on their respective writ
petitions/Letters Patent Appeal wherein their termination orders
were set aside and such orders/judgments were never put to
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
120/134
challenge.
122. Upon detailed consideration of the
facts and the settled legal positions, it is evident that despite the
State’s belated allegations regarding the “forged” or “illegal”
nature of the initial appointments, the petitioners were permitted
to complete their full tenures of service and superannuate
honourably, with pension and pensionary benefits being duly
sanctioned and disbursed by the authorities. Crucially, the prior
judicial adjudications rendered in favor of these petitioners in
their respective writ petitions attained legal finality, as the State
chose not to challenge those orders before the Apex Court or
any higher forum available with the State.
123. In the specific case of the petitioner namely
Pawan Kumar Jha, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court
judgment in LPA No. 292 of 2014 passed in the case of this
petitioner gave liberty to the state respondent for fact finding in
light of Apex Court judgment in Devendra Sharma mandate;
however, it is admitted that the requisite fact-finding and
committee procedures were not concluded during his active
service, and his rights remained protected under the
Hemchandra Jha precedent. The State respondents notably came
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
121/134
up with an impugned order as contained in Memo No.390 (4b)
dated 29.10.2025 during the pendency of the case of Pawan
Kumar Jha in succession of the earlier impugned letter dated
29.09.2023 and 05.02.2024, which is purportedly been done to
show the compliance of order passed in LPA No. 292 of 2014,
and according to the petitioner the same has been passed
unilaterally relying upon the enquiry committee report, which
report according to the State Respondent has been approved by
the Hon’ble Apex Court and the fact of unilateral decision taken
vide order dated 29.10.2025 as per the petitioner, has not been
denied by the State Respondent.
Furthermore, a clear case of discrimination is
established, as the petitioners have highlighted in their
rejoinders that other similarly situated persons, whose
appointments were also questioned in the same five-member
committee report, continue to receive their pensions without
interruption. It must be emphasized that the allegation of
“forgery” in the case of Pawan Kumar Jha appears to be legally
impermissible, as it is based merely on the department’s own
failure to locate documents in its records rather than proof of
fraud, and before the application of five-member inquiry report
itself the principles of natural justice was not followed, as the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
122/134
petitioners were never afforded an opportunity to be heard.
124. In CWJC No. 16069 of 2023, the core
grievance arose on September 27, 2023, when the respondent
authorities issued Memo No. 2998, stopping the petitioner’s
pension with immediate effect without prior notice or a hearing.
During the pendency of this writ, the respondents further issued
a reasoned order on August 20, 2024, rejecting the petitioner’s
representation for the restoration of his benefits. It was
contended by the respondents that petitioner’s appointment was
fundamentally “illegal and void ab initio,” asserting that he was
erroneously described as a “voluntary worker” being promoted
to a non-existent post. Five-Member Committee report,
identified the petitioner’s appointment (at Serial No. 143) as
“illegal” rather than merely “irregular”. The respondents indorse
that because the petitioner’s entry into service was fraudulent
and bypassed constitutional mandates for public employment,
he cannot be recognized as a “Civil Servant”. Furthermore, a
clear case of discrimination is established, as it is important to
take note of the case of a similarly situated employee, Sri Uday
Shankar Prasad, who was granted full financial benefits and
regularization.
125. In CWJC No. 16670 of 2023, petitioner’s
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
123/134
husband faced an abrupt termination in 2003 due to allegations
of forged documents, which was stayed by this Court, following
a legal trajectory in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 by which Court-
ordered for re-examination of original service records in 2006,
the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur,
issued an order in 2008 withdrawing the termination and
reinstating him unconditionally. Ultimately, the petitioner
emphasizes that her husband’s service records were already
scrutinized and validated in 2008 following this Court order.
Further, the respondents cannot unilaterally label the
appointment as “forged” after the employee’s death based on a
“Five-Men Committee” report that was never shared with the
petitioner and does not name her husband as a party to any
fraud. It is pertinent to note that under Rule 43(b), a sanctioned
pension cannot be withheld without a formal finding of grave
misconduct during service, and since no such proceedings were
initiated within the statutory limitation period, the cessation of
her family pension is an unlawful exercise of power.
126. In CWJC No. 16761 of 2023, it is a matter of
record that the abrupt stoppage of the petitioner’s monthly
pension and retiral benefits via Memo No. 1485 and Letter No.
255, both dated October 5, 2023, on the grounds that his initial
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
124/134
1987 appointment as a Basic Health Worker was “forged”. The
petitioner, who successfully completed training in 1974 and
served for sixteen years before an instant termination in 2003,
was previously reinstated following this Court’s order in CWJC
No. 16907 of 2009, which quashed a 2006 enquiry report
labelling his appointment fraudulent. Significantly, while the
State’s appeal (LPA No. 1105 of 2013) was dismissed in 2014
with liberty to initiate fresh legal proceedings, the authorities
failed to act, allowing the petitioner to superannuate on January
31, 2018, and receive regular pensionary benefits for five years.
The respondents rationalize the current cessation of payments
by citing Supreme Court directives in State of Bihar v. Devendra
Sharma regarding forged and illegal appointments, asserting that
the petitioner’s service was void ab initio due to a fraudulent
certificate; conversely, these punitive measures were
implemented without the issuance of a show-cause notice or an
opportunity for a hearing, which prima facie constitutes a gross
violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the
Constitution, furthermore, several other persons involved in
those same Supreme Court appeals, such as Surendra Prasad,
Parmeshwar Yadav, and Khurshid Alam, continue to receive
their pension and benefits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
125/134
127. In CWJC Nos. 17963 of 2023, 18408 of
2023 and 351 of 2024, the petitioners contends that their
services were regularized following multiple rounds of
litigation, including a Division Bench dismissal of the State’s
appeal in different L.P.A., which purportedly attained finality
regarding their service legality prior to their superannuation.
Further, the contention raised by the respondents authority that
petitioners appointment was consistently classified as “illegal”
and “void ab initio” by a five-member committee constituted
under judicial direction, and that the matter has reached absolute
finality through the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in State
of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad and State of Bihar vs.
Devendra Sharma, which held that void appointments confer no
rights to terminal benefits. The core issue for determination is
whether the respondent authorities can retrospectively stop the
pension of an employee, who retired after decades of service
and successful prior litigation, by relying on subsequent in
personam Supreme Court rulings without fresh notice or inquiry
or any show cause notice before stopping pension and family
pension of these petitioners respectively, and the five-men
committee report was prepared behind the back of these
petitioners, therefore, it is not justified to apply the report in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
126/134
case of these petitioners without giving any opportunity of being
heard.
128. It is pertinent to note that no parameters were
ever placed on record, which fixed to determine the basis on
which appointments were classified as illegal, irregular, or
forged. Moreover, several similarly situated persons, whose
names were also included in the five-men committee report
under these very categories, continue to receive pension without
any obstruction from the respondent authorities. Further, neither
during the course of proceedings nor in their counter affidavits
have the respondent authorities provided any reasoning or
justification explaining the basis of such discriminatory
treatment among similarly situated individuals and stopping the
pension of these petitioners by applying the Apex Court
judgment in Devendra Sharma and Kirti Narayan (supra) on
pick and choose basis. While the only submission made in this
regard by the respondent is that illegality cannot be invoked
perpetually, however, they themselves have made a submission
to uniformly apply the Apex Court judgments in Devendra
Sharma and Kirti Narayan. Therefore, these two contradictory
stands are taken by them creating a class within class which is
impermissible in law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
127/134
129. The subsequent administrative action to stop
pensionary benefits after the master-servant relationship has
been completely severed is devoid of legal sanction. Once an
employee has superannuated and the relationship has reached its
natural conclusion, the State is precluded from reopening issues
related to the validity of the initial appointment. The reliance
placed by the respondents on the Devendra Sharma and Kirti
Narayan judgments to justify the stoppage of pension even after
the benefits had been formally sanctioned is not justified in law.
Those rulings were predicated on findings and committee
reports utilized while the individuals were still in service. If the
petitioners’ appointments were to be governed by those
mandates, the State was required to have acted during their
service tenure; having allowed them to retire unconditionally,
the State cannot now retrospectively apply those judgments to
rescind settled post-retirement rights. Because the relationship
between the employer and employee has been severed and
completed on their respective dates of superannuation, the
respondents are now estopped from raising entry-level disputes
to deprive the petitioners of their earned means of subsistence.
130. The record clearly reflects that the petitioners
received regular salaries against posts with attached pay scales
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
128/134
and were granted all consequential benefits in terms of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950, up until the date of their superannuation.
These consistent administrative actions by the State authorities
demonstrate a formal and continuous recognition of their
services throughout their entire service period. Furthermore,
when coercive actions were attempted by the authorities during
the relevant period of service, such orders were successfully
challenged and interfered with by the Hon’ble Court, ensuring
the petitioners continuance in service until they attained
superannuation. Consequently, pension and pensionary benefits
were extended in their favor after their respective dates of
retirement, signifying a settled and finalized status of their
services that the State is now attempting to reopen.
131. The judgments relied by the state respondents
of the Apex Court in the Devendra Sharma and Kirti Narayan
cases are strictly in personam in nature, as the judicial scrutiny
was confined to the specific service records and forged
appointments of the individual litigants then before the Court.
Unlike a judgment in rem, which declares a status for the
broader public or establishes a universal policy benefit, these
rulings utilized restrictive language specifically referring to “the
instant cases” and “the writ petitioners” to resolve the particular
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
129/134
disputes at hand. The core issues in the referred judgments
pertained to the procedural requirements for the termination of
services of active employees. In contrast, the present case
involves a retired employee whose service was formally
recognized by the State for decades until superannuation.
Consequently, these findings do not constitute a blanket
mandate that can be extended to all employees within the Health
Department, nor can they be used to strip away the settled
constitutional rights of individuals who were not parties to those
original proceedings.
132. Also, the reliance placed by the respondents
on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.
709 of 2023 is misplaced and cannot be made applicable to the
present cases. In that matter, the challenges before the Division
Bench pertained to the termination of active services, whereas
the present writ petitions specifically challenge the stoppage of
pension. This distinguishing feature is apparent on the face of
the record. Similarly, the Apex Court judgments in Devendra
Sharma and Kirti Narayan Prasad, which formed the basis of the
decision in LPA No. 709 of 2023, are also inapplicable. Those
rulings adjudicated the validity of appointments and subsequent
terminations based on the five-member committee report, but
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
130/134
the issue of pension was not part of those litigations. In the
present matter, the issue of initial appointment is not under
challenge; rather, the petitioners are before this Court against the
arbitrary stoppage of their earned pension after they have
already superannuated.
133. This Court finds that the case of Jagannath
Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors (LPA No. 1173 of 2018) squarely
covers the current dispute, as it specifically deals with the illegal
stoppage of pension after it had already been sanctioned and
disbursed. The ratio in Jagannath Jha (supra) is equally
applicable here, as the stoppage of pension is beyond the
jurisdiction of the respondent authorities under Rule 43(b) of the
Bihar Pension Rules. The rule mandates that no proceedings can
be initiated for a misconduct or pecuniary loss that took place
more than four years prior. Since the allegations here relate to
initial appointments made several decades ago and the four-year
statutory barrier must be counted from the date of the alleged
incident i.e. from the date of appointment, any inquiry into the
legality of the appointment is now barred under applicable law.
No departmental proceedings were initiated during the
petitioners’ service, and none could have been initiated after
their retirement regarding issues of appointment dating back
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
131/134
over thirty years.
134. Termination order passed in respect of these
petitioners based on the five men committee report has already
been set aside by this Court on their respective petitions and
when appealed before the higher forum, the same has not been
interfered and the order passed in their respect has already
attained finality and as such, the stand taken by the Respondent-
authority by referring to the two judgments of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra) and
Devendra Sharma (supra), the appointment of all these writ
petitioners cannot said to be void ab initio because for holding
any appointment to be illegal or forged, it is incumbent upon the
respondent authorities to follow principles of natural justice and
as also by resorting to the procedure prescribed, they are obliged
to record a finding with regard to their appointment being bad in
law, which admittedly, having not been done in respect of these
petitioners during their service period or thereafter and all such
order questioning their appointment followed with termination
order, passed during the service period have already been set
aside by this Court and such orders have attained finality. The
only legal resort available for passing impugned orders in
question was to have taken recourse of the procedures as
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
132/134
prescribed under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, but the same
having not been done and straightway the respondents have
passed impugned orders stopping the pension of these
petitioners, for an allegation which is beyond the limitation
prescribed under the statute, is wholly unjustified and
unsustainable in law, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Md. Idris (supra).
135. Upon careful consideration, this Court finds that
raising issues of “illegal” or “forged” appointments after an
employee has superannuated and had their pension sanctioned,
is impermissible. By their own actions of recognizing the
service and sanctioning retiral benefits, the authorities are
legally estopped under the principles of estoppel and
“approbate and reprobate.”
DIRECTIONS
136. Accordingly, the impugned orders for
stoppage of pension in the case of Pawan Kumar Jha (lead case)
as contained in Memo No. 424 dated 29.09.2023 and subsequent
recovery orders (vide memo no. 183 dated 05.02.2024) and
unilateral compliance order as contained in Memo No. 390(4b)
dated 29.10.2025, are set aside. As the recovery of amounts had
already been stayed by this Court, so any recovery made shall
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
133/134
be refunded forthwith. Further, the impugned orders for
stoppage of pension in respect of petitioner of CWJC No. 16069
of 2023 issued vide Memo No. 2998 dated 27.09.2023,
petitioner of CWJC No. 16670 of 2023 issued vide Memo No.
415 dated 15.07.2023, petitioner of CWJC No. 16761 of 2023
issued vide Memo No. 1485 dated 05.10.2023, petitioner of
CWJC No. 17963 of 2023 issued vide Memo No. 332 dated
15.07.2023, petitioner of CWJC No. 18408 of 2023 issued vide
Memo No. 415 dated 15.07.2023, and petitioner of CWJC No.
351 of 2024 issued vide Memo No. 2998 dated 27.09.2023 are
also set aside.
137. In consequence of the order impugned
having been set aside by this Court, the authorities are required
to restore the pension allowed in their favour and arrears of
pension shall also be calculated from the date of passing of
impugned orders and shall be paid to all these petitioners who
are entitled to the admissible pensions which were being paid to
the employees or legal heirs accordingly.
138. Additionally, in respect of Pawan Kumar Jha
in CWJC No. 17271 of 2023, the entitlement of
Mandey/remuneration with regard to contractual employment
after superannuation w.e.f. 01.03.2023 to 29.09.2023, shall also
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
134/134
be adjudicated in reference to official records for which
directions were already issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench in
LPA No. 292 of 2014 as against the contractual post. The
aforementioned directions in the all the cases shall be complied
with by the authorities within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of production/receipt of a copy of this order/judgment.
139. Accordingly, all the aforesaid writ petitions
stand disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 11.03.2026
Uploading Date 23.04.2026
Transmission Date