Case Background
The petitioner worked in the Water Resources Department of the Government of Bihar. He was first appointed as a Junior Engineer on 20.01.1987. In 1997, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer.
On 15.04.2019, before his retirement, the Department started a departmental proceeding against him. The allegation was that government money had been withdrawn illegally and that the petitioner had not followed the Bihar Financial Rules.
The petitioner retired on 30.04.2020 from the post of Assistant Engineer, working as Sub-Divisional Officer (Assistant Engineer) in Command Area Development Sub-Division-01, Lakhisarai, under the Department of Water Resources.
After retirement, he did not receive his full pension, gratuity, commuted value of pension, and leave encashment. Only 90% provisional pension was sanctioned in his favour by Letter No. 2972 dated 29.09.2020 under Rule 43(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
According to the petitioner, he had already been cleared of the charge of illegal withdrawal of Rs. 48,000/-. He claimed that another employee, an Accounts Clerk named in the enquiry, had been held responsible and dismissed from service for that misconduct.
Even then, more than four years after his retirement, his major retirement benefits remained unpaid. Feeling aggrieved, he filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15451 of 2024 before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner asked the Patna High Court for directions to release his full retirement benefits. He sought gratuity, full pension, commutation of pension, encashment of 300 days’ earned leave, and payment of the 10% pension withheld, along with interest. He also asked for any other consequential financial benefits due for his service period.
His main argument was that the allegation of illegal withdrawal of Rs. 48,000/- from Bank of India, Lakhisarai Branch, had not been proved against him. The enquiry officer had, according to him, clearly held that the amount was illegally withdrawn by the Accounts Clerk, who was dismissed. Therefore, there was no justification for withholding his retiral dues under Rule 43(c) and Rule 43(d) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
The petitioner further pointed out that:
• The departmental enquiry had been initiated in April 2019 and had remained pending for nearly seven years.
• The enquiry report had been submitted long back, but the competent authority had not passed a final order under Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, despite a circular of the General Administration Department dated 17.01.2020 which required early decisions on enquiry reports.
• Due to this inaction, his 10% pension, full gratuity and leave encashment were still not paid.
On the other hand, the State opposed the writ petition. The State’s counsel argued that they were justified in withholding the gratuity under Rule 43(d) of the Bihar Pension Rules because a departmental proceeding was pending on the date of retirement.
The State confirmed some key facts in its counter affidavit:
• The petitioner was appointed Junior Engineer in 1987, later promoted to Assistant Engineer in 1997, and superannuated on 30.04.2020.
• A departmental proceeding was initiated on 15.04.2019 through Resolution in Memo No. 770, relating to alleged illegal withdrawal of Government money and non-compliance with Bihar Financial Rules.
• Because the proceeding was pending at retirement, only 90% provisional pension was sanctioned on 29.09.2020 under Rule 43(c).
• The Conducting Officer did not find the allegation of illegal withdrawal of Government money proved against the petitioner. However, he held that the petitioner had failed to comply with relevant provisions of the Bihar Financial Rules during his tenure and that this part of the charge was proved.
• The departmental proceeding had not yet reached finality. A proposal for a minor punishment under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules—reduction of pension by 5% for one year—had been sent to the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) for consultation through Memo No. 648 dated 24.04.2026.
The State took the stand that until the BPSC’s opinion was received and the disciplinary authority passed a final order, the petitioner could not be treated as fully exonerated. They said that admissible retiral benefits would be released after conclusion of the proceeding.
After hearing both sides, the Court identified the central question: Was the petitioner entitled to get his pending retiral dues despite the long-pending departmental proceeding that had not reached finality for nearly seven years?
The Court then examined important Supreme Court judgments on delayed departmental proceedings and on pension rights.
First, it discussed P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636, which, relying on State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154, held that:
• There is no fixed formula, but where delay in disciplinary proceedings is abnormal and unexplained, courts must look at the prejudice to the employee.
• Disciplinary proceedings should generally be allowed to continue, but unexplained delay can justify interference, because delay causes mental agony and monetary loss to the employee.
• In cases of inordinate delay not attributable to the employee, courts may “draw the curtain” and end the enquiry.
The Patna High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation that keeping an officer under prolonged charges of corruption causes unbearable mental stress, and that for mistakes of the department in initiating or processing proceedings, the employee should not be made to suffer.
Second, the Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Hira Lal v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 1027, on Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The Supreme Court held that:
• Rule 43(b) allows withholding or withdrawal of pension only when the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or has caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence.
• The rule does not itself authorise withholding pension merely because a departmental or judicial proceeding is pending.
• Pension and gratuity are protected property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution. They cannot be withheld by executive orders without statutory backing.
The Court also referred to Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and other precedents relied upon in Dr. Hira Lal, which classify pension as “property” and say it cannot be taken away by a mere executive order.
Third, the Court relied on D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. In that case, the Supreme Court held that:
• Pension is not a bounty or charity but a vested right earned by past service.
• It is a form of social welfare and socio-economic justice so that retired employees are not left in difficulty in old age.
Fourth, the Patna High Court referred to its own earlier decision in Akhilesh Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 9957 of 2023, which in turn relied on Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha v. State of Bihar, L.P.A. No. 124 of 1999. Those decisions held that:
• Pensionary dues, including gratuity, cannot be withheld merely because a proceeding is pending unless a proper order is passed under Rule 43(b).
• Leave encashment also cannot be withheld merely by invoking Rule 43(b).
Turning back to the facts, the Court noted that:
• The charge of illegal withdrawal of Rs. 48,000/- had not been proved against the petitioner. The enquiry officer found that this money was withdrawn illegally by the Accounts Clerk, who was dismissed.
• The State itself accepted that only failure to comply with some provisions of the Bihar Financial Rules was held proved against the petitioner, and a proposal of a limited pension cut had been sent to BPSC.
• Even so, for nearly seven years from initiation of the proceeding, no final order had been passed by the disciplinary authority.
• During this whole period, the petitioner was getting only 90% provisional pension, and his gratuity and leave encashment remained blocked.
The Court observed that in light of D.S. Nakara, pension is property under Article 300-A and cannot be treated as a mere bounty. The long pendency of the departmental proceeding, without any final order, had an “indirect penal effect” on the petitioner because he was deprived of his lawful dues for years.
The Court held that the respondents were under an obligation to complete departmental proceedings in the shortest possible time, as emphasised by the Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan and Dr. Hira Lal. The delay in this case was unexplained in the counter affidavit, was not attributable to the petitioner, and had caused serious prejudice to him.
Balancing the competing considerations, the Court found that equity lay in favour of the petitioner. It held that the disciplinary authorities had delayed the departmental proceeding beyond the statutory period, without authority of law, and that this required the Court’s interference.
However, instead of immediately quashing the proceeding, the Court gave one last opportunity to the authorities. It directed them to take a final decision in the departmental proceeding within six weeks.
The Court laid down a clear consequence: if the authorities failed to take a final decision within that six-week period, the departmental proceeding would automatically stand closed.
In that situation, the respondents would be bound to pay all retiral dues under different heads, including full pension, to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for retired government employees whose pension and gratuity are held back due to long, unfinished departmental enquiries.
The Patna High Court made it clear that the Government cannot indefinitely delay a departmental proceeding and, on that ground alone, keep a retired employee’s dues blocked for years.
By relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Court reinforced that pension, gratuity and similar retirement benefits are legal rights, not charity. They are treated as property under the Constitution. Non-payment without legal justification amounts to serious prejudice.
The judgment also underlines that if the State wants to reduce or withhold pension under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, it must finish the enquiry and pass a proper final order. Mere pendency of a departmental case is not enough to deny benefits indefinitely.
For employees in Bihar, especially those facing old departmental proceedings with no final decision, this case shows that courts can step in. The Court can set a time limit for the Government to act and can declare that if the deadline is not met, the enquiry will close and benefits must be released.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can the State withhold a retired employee’s pension, gratuity and leave encashment for several years only because a departmental proceeding remains pending without final order?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that such prolonged, unexplained delay causes serious prejudice and cannot justify indefinite withholding of retiral dues. The State must conclude the proceeding within a reasonable, fixed time or release full benefits.
Issue: Does Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 permit withholding of pension merely due to pendency of an enquiry?
Answer: No. Relying on Dr. Hira Lal and other Supreme Court judgments, the Court held that Rule 43(b) allows action only after the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or causing pecuniary loss, and does not itself authorise withholding pension simply because proceedings are pending.
Issue: What time-bound directions can the Court give when departmental proceedings remain incomplete for years after retirement?
Answer: The Court directed the respondents to take a final decision in the departmental proceeding within six weeks, failing which the proceeding would stand closed and all retiral dues, including pension, must be paid within two further weeks.
Cases Cited by the Court
- P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636
- State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154
- Dr. Hira Lal v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 1027
- Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330
- D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305
- Akhilesh Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 9957 of 2023 (Patna High Court)
- Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha v. State of Bihar, L.P.A. No. 124 of 1999 (Patna High Court)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15451 of 2024
Case Title: Mahendra Ram v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (6) PLJR 268
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Date of Judgment: 24.09.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kishore, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shiv Pratap, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction seeking release of pension, gratuity, commutation, leave encashment and withheld portion of pension, along with consequential reliefs.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTU0NTEjMjAyNCMxI04=-6ZL7e3wB6hQ=
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.
