Patna High Court – Orders
The State Of Bihar Through The Principal … vs Manidhar Mishra on 16 July, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.578 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9974 of 2022
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Viaksh Bhawan,
New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Manidhar Mishra Son of late Jatadhar Mishra, Resident of Village and Post
Saramohanpur, P.S. - Sadar, District- Darbhang
2. The Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University Kameshwarnagar,
Darbhanga, through its Registrar.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanksrit University
Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga.
4. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanksrit University Kamesh
warnagar, Darbhanga.
5. The Principal, Baba Saheb Ram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Pachadhi,
Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mrs. Usha Kumari Singh, A.C. to S.C.-13
For the Respondents : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
7 16-07-2026
Re.: I.A. No. 02 of 2026:
Learned counsel for the appellant presses I.A. No. 02
of 2026 for condoning the delay of 50 days in preferring this
appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
2/12
in preferring this appeal is condoned.
3. I.A. No. 02 of 2026 stands allowed.
Re. L.P.A. No. 578 of 2025
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2025 passed by
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9974 of 2022, whereby the
writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent no. 1
herein) came to be allowed.
6. The brief facts of the present case are that the writ
petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) claimed to have been
appointed as Lecturer in History in Maharani Adhirani
Rameshwar Lata Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Darbhanga in the
year 1980. According to the writ petitioner, his appointment was
subsequently approved by the University, his services were
confirmed and regularized with effect from 01.04.1983, and he
continued in service till attaining the age of superannuation on
31.07.2016. It was further his case that after retirement, Pension
Payment Order (PPO) was issued and pensionary as well as
other retiral benefits were released.
7. The dispute arose when the monthly pension of the
writ petitioner was discontinued from October, 2018. Aggrieved
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
3/12
thereby, the writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court in
C.W.J.C. No.10892 of 2019, wherein directions were issued for
restoration of pension. Thereafter, the Director, Higher
Education called upon the writ petitioner to produce documents
relating to his appointment and service. According to the writ
petitioner, the requisite documents were furnished through
representations. As the grievance remained unresolved, the writ
petitioner instituted the writ proceedings, which came to be
allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment,
the operative part of the said order reads as follows:
“26. In view of the foregoing discussions and in
view of the order passed in the Braj Kishor
Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors
1997(1) BLJR 625, admittedly, there is no
requirement to take prior approval of the State
Government, when the post is already sanctioned
and the petitioner can be said to be legally
appointed as the post was advertised and he was
appointed after facing the interview for daily
wages. In view of the Full Bench judgment, Braj
Kishore Singh (supra) ‘post facto’ approval of
the State Government is not required.
27. In the result, I set aside the Memo No.1304
dated 03.05.2022, passed by the Director, Higher
Education, Education Department, Patna, Bihar,
and the letter No.646, dated 09.07.2022, issued
by the Registrar of the University.
28. The Authorities concerned are directed to
pay the pension of the petitioner and also arrear
of pension, if any, within two months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
29. It is made clear that if the respondent nos. 2
& 4 shall be held liable for the non-compliance
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
4/12of the present order within the stipulated period.
30. With the aforesaid directions, this writ
application stands allowed.”
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ
petition without appreciating that the writ petitioner was initially
appointed only as a temporary teacher under Section 35(2) of
the Bihar State Universities Act for a limited period and that his
appointment was not made through the procedure prescribed
under the Act, including recommendation of the Bihar College
Service Commission. It is further submitted that after the
concerned college became a constituent unit, the services of the
writ petitioner were never regularized in accordance with any of
the Statutes governing regularization of temporary teachers.
Consequently, the writ petitioner did not acquire the status of a
regular teacher so as to claim pensionary benefits.
9. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge
failed to consider the law laid down by the Division Bench in
Shiv Narain Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2001 (2) PLJR 817,
wherein the Statutes relating to regularization of temporary
teachers were declared ultra vires. It is submitted that the
reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on Braj Kishore
Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1997 (1) BLJR 625 is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
5/12
misplaced, as the said decision pertained to regularization of
non-teaching employees and has no application to the case of a
teacher appointed dehors the statutory procedure.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the learned
Single Judge also failed to adequately consider the stand taken
by the State in its counter affidavit and, therefore, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the
facts and the materials available on record while allowing the
writ petition. It is submitted that the writ petitioner had rendered
long years of service, his appointment and service had been duly
recognized by the University, and pensionary benefits had also
been sanctioned after his retirement. Accordingly, it is prayed
that the appeal be dismissed.
12. The limited issue which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the impugned judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any legal
infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
13. The controversy essentially revolves around
whether the writ petitioner, whose appointment was made
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
6/12
against a sanctioned post and whose service was subsequently
recognized by the University culminating in confirmation,
regularization, grant of pay revisions, retirement and sanction of
pension, can be denied pensionary benefits on the ground that
his initial appointment was allegedly not made in accordance
with the statutory procedure or on the recommendation of the
Bihar College Service Commission.
14. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the writ
petitioner entered service in the year 1980 and continued
uninterruptedly till his retirement on 31.07.2016. The records
further disclose that the competent authorities of the University
provisionally approved his appointment, subsequently
confirmed and regularized his services with effect from
01.04.1983, extended successive pay revisions, granted the
benefits of the Sixth Pay Revision, issued Pension Payment
Order and released pensionary benefits after his retirement. It
was only after payment of pension for nearly two years that the
same came to be withheld by the impugned administrative
orders.
15. The principal contention of the appellants is that
the writ petitioner was merely a temporary appointee under
Section 35(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act and, since his
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
7/12
appointment was not made on the recommendation of the Bihar
College Service Commission and his services were never
validly regularized under the relevant Statutes, he did not
acquire any right to pension. We are unable to accept the said
contention.
16. The learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that
the writ petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post after
issuance of advertisement and undergoing the process of
selection. Once the University itself accepted his appointment,
confirmed and regularized his services, granted all service
benefits throughout his career and permitted him to retire on
attaining the age of superannuation by issuing a Pension
Payment Order, it is not open to the authorities, after several
decades, to deny pension by questioning the very foundation of
the appointment. Such a course is contrary to settled principles
of fairness and administrative consistency.
17. The reliance placed by the appellants upon the
decision of the Division Bench in Shiv Narain Yadav (supra),
also does not advance their case. The said judgment dealt with
the validity of the Statutes relating to regularization of
temporary teachers. The present case, however, stands on a
different footing, where the University itself had, over the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
8/12
course of several decades, recognized the writ petitioner’s
service by confirming and regularizing the same, extending all
consequential service benefits, and ultimately sanctioning
pension. The issue herein is not one of seeking regularization
but of withdrawal of pension after retirement despite long-
standing recognition of service.
18. Equally untenable is the contention that the
learned Single Judge erred in relying upon the Full Bench
decision in Braj Kishore Singh (supra). The Full Bench
authoritatively held that where appointments are made against
sanctioned posts after following the prescribed process, prior
approval of the State Government is not a condition precedent
and post facto approval is not required. The learned Single
Judge rightly applied the said principle, having found that the
writ petitioner had been appointed against a sanctioned post
after advertisement and selection. We find no infirmity in such
reliance.
19. The submission that the learned Single Judge
failed to consider the counter affidavit of the State also does not
merit acceptance. A perusal of the impugned judgment
demonstrates that the learned Single Judge considered the rival
pleadings and the documents placed on record before arriving at
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
9/12
the conclusion that the impugned administrative orders
withholding pension were unsustainable. Mere non-acceptance
of the State’s stand cannot be equated with non-consideration of
its pleadings.
20. The Supreme Court has consistently held that
pension is not a gratuitous payment but a valuable right earned
by an employee for the services rendered. In Deokinandan
Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330, the
Court held that the right to receive pension is a property right
and cannot be taken away except by authority of law. The
relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“33. Having due regard to the above decisions,
we are of the opinion that the right of the
petitioner to receive pension is property under
Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the
State had no power to withhold the same.
Similarly, the said claim is also property under
Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article
(5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the
order, dated June 12, 1968, denying the
petitioner right to receive pension affects the
fundamental right of the petitioner under
Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution,
and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is
maintainable. It may be that under the Pension
Act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil
court entertaining any suit relating to the
matters mentioned therein. That does not stand
in the way of writ of mandamus being issued to
the State to property consider the claim of the
petitioner for payment of pension according to
law.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
10/12
21. The principle was reiterated in State of
Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2013)
12 SCC 210, wherein the Supreme Court held that pension and
retiral benefits cannot be withheld in the absence of statutory
authority and that such action would offend Article 300-A of the
Constitution. The relevant part of the said order reads as
follows:
“15. In State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee this
Court recognised that even when, after the
repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) of the
Constitution vide Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20-6-1979, the
right to property no longer remained a
fundamental right, it was still a constitutional
right, as provided in Article 300-A of the
Constitution. Right to receive pension was
treated as right to property. Otherwise,
challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule
10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-
Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred
the right upon the Governor to withhold or
withdraw a pension or any part thereof under
certain circumstances and the said challenge
was repelled by this Court.
16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur
to the legal principle that the right to receive
pension is recognised as a right in “property”.
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads
as under:
“300-A.Persons not to be deprived of property
save by authority of law.–No person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority of
law.”
Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to
the question posed by us in the beginning of this
judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
11/12
be deprived of this pension without the authority
of law, which is the constitutional mandate
enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It
follows that attempt of the appellant to take
away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave
encashment without any statutory provision and
under the umbrage of administrative instruction
cannot be countenanced.”
22. In the present case, the appellants have not
demonstrated any statutory provision authorizing withdrawal of
the writ petitioner’s pension after the competent authorities
themselves had sanctioned and released the same. The
impugned orders merely seek to revisit the validity of an
appointment made decades earlier despite uninterrupted service,
confirmation, regularization, grant of pay revisions and
retirement. Such an exercise cannot be sustained in law.
23. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, this Court is
of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity,
perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
24. In view of the aforesaid, the issue framed is
answered against the appellants.
25. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
Patna High Court L.P.A No.578 of 2025(7) dt.16-07-2026
12/12
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U.K./Nitesh
U
