Simplified Explanation of the Judgment (700–900 words)

On 25 February 2021, the Patna High Court delivered an important ruling concerning the withholding of retiral dues of a retired government school teacher. The petitioner, who retired on 30 November 2018 as a Senior Teacher from Bankipur Government Girls High School, Patna, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for payment of her pension, gratuity, and leave encashment with interest.

She argued that no departmental or criminal proceedings were pending against her at the time of her retirement. Yet, despite repeated representations, her dues were not released.

The State’s Defence:
The Education Department claimed that a departmental proceeding had been initiated against her before retirement based on a CBI report alleging irregularities in teacher appointments. They stated that charges were served, and as an interim measure, 90% provisional pension and 90% provisional gratuity were allowed. Later, on 09 October 2020, the departmental proceedings concluded with the punishment of 100% pension forfeiture (permanent stoppage). On this basis, the Treasury Officer argued that gratuity and leave encashment were also withheld.

The Accountant General’s Stand:
The Accountant General, Bihar, submitted that a pension payment order granting 90% of pension and gratuity had been issued to the Treasury Officer, Patna on 04 June 2020. However, no payment was made.

High Court’s Observations and Findings:

1. No Authority to Withhold Pension Pre-Punishment:
   • The Court held that from the date of retirement (30.11.2018) till the date of punishment (09.10.2020), the petitioner was entitled to full pension.
   • There was no legal authority to withhold pension retrospectively in the absence of a clear direction in the punishment order.
2. Gratuity Cannot Be Withheld:
   • Referring to the Full Bench judgment in Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2018 (2) PLJR 933, the Court reiterated that after the insertion of Rule 43(c) in the Bihar Pension Rules (2012), gratuity cannot be withheld except in cases explicitly covered by law.
   • Since the punishment order did not direct forfeiture of gratuity, the petitioner was entitled to full gratuity.
3. Leave Encashment Also Payable:
   • Although the government may withhold leave encashment in certain circumstances, in this case, the punishment order did not mention it.
   • Hence, the petitioner was entitled to full leave encashment.
4. Treasury Officer’s Inaction:
   • The Treasury Officer had failed to release payment despite receiving orders from the Accountant General in June 2020.
   • The Court held him personally responsible for harassment caused to the petitioner and imposed a cost of ₹20,000, payable within two months. If not paid, it was to be recovered as a fine from the officer personally.

Final Directions of the Court:

• Payment of full pension from 30.11.2018 till 09.10.2020.
• Payment of full gratuity and full leave encashment.
• Compliance to be completed within two months.
• Treasury Officer to pay ₹20,000 as cost for unnecessary delay and harassment.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• The decision strengthens the rights of retired government employees in Bihar to timely payment of pension, gratuity, and leave encashment.
• It reaffirms that pension is not a bounty but a right protected by statutory rules. Any stoppage can only be done prospectively and in accordance with law.
• By imposing personal cost on the Treasury Officer, the Court has sent a strong message to government officials that deliberate delay or inaction in releasing retiral dues will attract personal liability.
• This ruling will act as a safeguard for thousands of retired teachers and employees facing similar withholding of dues due to prolonged departmental proceedings.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether pension can be withheld retrospectively from the date of retirement due to subsequent punishment?
  • Decision: No. Pension stoppage is effective only prospectively unless explicitly directed otherwise.
• Whether gratuity can be withheld after Rule 43(c) amendment?
  • Decision: No. Gratuity cannot be withheld unless covered by express statutory provision.
• Whether leave encashment could be denied in this case?
  • Decision: No. Since the punishment order was silent, leave encashment must be paid.
• Whether Treasury Officer acted lawfully by delaying payment?
  • Decision: No. He acted without authority, hence personal cost of ₹20,000 imposed.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2018 (2) PLJR 933 (Full Bench, Patna High Court).

Case Title

Petitioner (Retired Teacher) v. State of Bihar & Others

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22042 of 2019

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 189

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
• For the Respondent Accountant General: Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate; Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate

Link to Judgment

MTUjMjIwNDIjMjAxOSMxI04=-Rr1Q–ak1–9DyPS4=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.