The Patna High Court’s 12 April 2021 oral judgment addresses whether a retired government employee’s pension could be revised downward based on administrative objections raised after retirement, and whether Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits could be cancelled or altered without giving the person a chance to be heard. The case also clarifies that administrative orders affecting pay fixation and promotions must follow the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a retired Pump Operator Grade-I from the Water Resources Department, had originally received pension based on the pay scale of ₹3050–4590, as reflected in a Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued immediately after retirement in 2004. Later, the Accountant General objected, and the department treated the pay scale as ₹2650–4000, effectively slashing the pension. The employee challenged these actions and also questioned subsequent departmental orders issued in 2003 and in April 2019 that tinkered with his ACP and pay fixation without notice.

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case turned on two core themes: (1) whether the department and the Accountant General could unilaterally reduce a retiree’s pension years after retirement by disputing ACP and pay scales, and (2) whether orders affecting an employee’s accrued benefits could be passed without giving the person an opportunity to be heard.

Background in brief

• The petitioner joined as a Pump Attendant in 1968 in the work-charged establishment. Over time, he was assigned higher responsibilities, ultimately working as Pump Operator Grade-I from 1974, and his services were regularised in 1977. He retired on 30 April 2004. His pension was sanctioned with reference to the ₹3050–4590 pay scale via PPO No. 410683, effective 1 May 2004.
• In 2007, after his retirement, the Chief Engineer granted the petitioner 1st and 2nd ACP in the relevant subsequent scales, and forwarded the service book for a revised PPO. The Accountant General objected and treated Pump Operator’s scale as ₹2650–4000 (w.e.f. 1 January 1996), thereby reducing pension.
• The department later relied on a 2003 memo (Memo No. 6350 dated 08.12.2003) rescinding an earlier grant of 1st ACP with effect from 01.03.1984, and, during pendency of the writ, issued further orders dated 10.04.2019 (Letter No. 546) and 15.04.2019 (Memo No. 767) changing the petitioner’s position—again, without hearing him.

Petitioner’s side

The petitioner argued that his pension should be revised upward based on the ACP benefits sanctioned in 2007 and that no authority could reduce his pension or alter his ACP without first giving him a fair hearing. He relied on earlier Patna High Court decisions, including Akhileshwar Prasad (CWJC No. 14287 of 2008) relating to refixation of pension based on last pay, and Mahendra Nath Choudhury (CWJC No. 9254 of 2006), which recognised counting work-charged service for pension/ACP and second time-bound promotion.

State/Accountant General’s side

The State countered that the petitioner had received multiple promotions from Pump Attendant to Pump Operator Grade-I and therefore could not claim ACP—meant to prevent stagnation for employees who do not get promotion. The Accountant General also argued that earlier fixation and pension on the ₹3050–4590 scale were irregular.

What the Court held

The Court focused sharply on procedural fairness. It found that the key departmental orders—08.12.2003, 10.04.2019 and 15.04.2019—were passed without hearing the petitioner. Orders that affect pay fixation, promotions, ACP, and pension must comply with the principles of natural justice. Because the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard, these orders were set aside. The Court remitted the matter to the Chief Engineer to pass a fresh, reasoned order after hearing the petitioner, within four months from the date the High Court’s order is received.

Importantly, until the Chief Engineer takes a fresh decision, the petitioner must continue to receive pension based on the original PPO issued immediately after retirement. The Court clarified that this was not a case of punitive “reduction” of pension for misconduct; rather, the department’s and Accountant General’s actions had “revised” pension in the wake of disputes about ACP and pay scales.

In short, the High Court did not finally decide whether the petitioner is substantively entitled to 1st and 2nd ACP or to pension on a higher scale. Instead, it restored procedural fairness by setting aside adverse orders passed without hearing and requiring a fresh, lawful decision within a fixed timeline, while protecting the petitioner’s existing pension in the interim.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• Reaffirmation of Natural Justice in Service Matters: The decision reinforces that any administrative order affecting an employee’s accrued or ongoing monetary benefits—such as ACP, pay fixation and pension—must be preceded by a fair hearing. Orders passed behind a retiree’s back are liable to be set aside.
• Protection of Pension Pending Proper Decision: Even when authorities believe earlier fixation was erroneous, pension already flowing under a PPO should not be curtailed without due process. The Court protected the retiree’s pension till a proper, post-hearing order is made.
• Guidance for Departments and the Accountant General: Departments must coordinate with the Accountant General but cannot cure past irregularities by unilateral orders. If pay scales, ACP entitlement, or promotions are re-examined, the affected person must be heard, and a reasoned order must follow.
• Relevance for Work-Charged Personnel: Although the Court did not finally grant ACP, it acknowledged the petitioner’s service trajectory from work-charged establishment to regularisation and flagged anomalies in fixation. Future cases involving work-charged service and ACP/pension will likely rely on the same insistence on hearing and reasoned orders.

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

• Whether the department could cancel/alter ACP and refix pay without hearing the retiree.
  Decision: No. The Court set aside the orders dated 08.12.2003, 10.04.2019 and 15.04.2019 as they were passed in violation of natural justice (no opportunity of hearing). Reasoning: Adverse administrative orders affecting pay fixation, promotions and ACP must comply with audi alteram partem; absence of hearing makes the orders bad.
• Interim pension arrangement pending fresh decision.
  Decision: Pension shall continue to be paid as per the original PPO issued immediately after retirement until a fresh order is passed after hearing. Reasoning: The Court clarified that this was not a punitive reduction case; pending lawful reconsideration, the status quo PPO governs.
• Remand and timeline for a fresh, reasoned order.
  Decision: Matter remitted to the Chief Engineer to decide afresh, after hearing, within four months from receipt of the High Court’s order. Reasoning: Ensures procedural fairness and timely resolution.

(Note: The Court did not finally adjudicate entitlement to 1st/2nd ACP; it required a lawful, post-hearing determination.)

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Akhileshwar Prasad, CWJC No. 14287 of 2008 (Patna High Court). Relied upon by the petitioner regarding re-fixation of pension on the basis of last pay drawn and related retiral benefits.
• Mahendra Nath Choudhury, CWJC No. 9254 of 2006 (Patna High Court, decided on 06.05.2008). Cited by the petitioner to argue that work-charged service counts for pensionary benefits and for ACP/second time-bound promotion.

Case Title

Petitioner vs. State of Bihar & Others (service/pension—ACP and pay fixation dispute)

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4511 of 2019

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 596

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha. Judgment dated 12.04.2021 (Oral).

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Ajay Kumar — for the petitioner.
• Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, AC to SC-11 — for the State.
• Mr. S. M. Ehtesham — for the Accountant General (A&E), Bihar.

Link to Judgment

MTUjNDUxMSMyMDE5IzEjTg==-BorIlpOzVIg=

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.