Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In February 2021, the Patna High Court delivered a significant judgment in two connected writ petitions filed by government engineers of Bihar who later joined the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The petitioners had initially served as Assistant Engineers in the Bihar Road Construction Department. With due permission, they proceeded on deputation to NHAI around 2009. Later, when NHAI invited applications for absorption (permanent appointment), they sought “No Objection Certificates” from the Bihar Government, which were not granted.

Finding themselves unable to secure absorption without leaving Bihar service, both engineers submitted resignation letters in October 2014. In their letters, they specifically requested acceptance of resignation with pension and retiral benefits so that their long government service would not go waste.

The Bihar Government, however, delayed acceptance and raised objections. The Finance Department referred to earlier circulars stating that resignation leads to forfeiture of past service, and unless one has completed 20 years of service for voluntary retirement, pension cannot be granted. Petitioners challenged these refusals through successive writ petitions before the High Court. Eventually, by a notification dated 22.01.2016, their resignations were accepted, but with a condition that they would not get pension and gratuity. They were, however, allowed to withdraw GPF, Group Insurance, and 50% leave encashment.

The engineers again approached the High Court challenging this notification. They argued that their resignations were “technical resignations” meant for absorption into another government body (NHAI), and therefore pensionary benefits should not be denied.

Petitioners’ Arguments

1. Their case was not one of voluntary retirement but of resignation with condition that retiral benefits should be preserved.
2. Rule 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code (voluntary retirement) was wrongly applied to them.
3. Rule 101(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — which causes forfeiture of service on resignation — should apply only when resignation is due to misconduct or stigma, not in cases of bona fide resignation for joining another government institution.
4. They cited earlier High Court decisions (such as Binay Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2019; Deo Krishna Mishra v. State of Bihar, 2004) where employees were granted pensionary benefits despite resignation for absorption in NHAI.

State Government’s Arguments

1. The petitioners were repeatedly informed that without 20 years’ qualifying service, they could not claim pension under voluntary retirement rules.
2. They were asked to give affidavits that they would not claim pension or gratuity, which they eventually submitted.
3. Their resignations were not “resignation simpliciter” (i.e., unconditional) because they knowingly gave consent to proceed under existing rules that excluded pension.
4. Rule 101(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules makes resignation a ground for forfeiture of past service, except where resignation is specifically for another pensionable post with prior approval.

Court’s Analysis

Justice Mohit Kumar Shah carefully examined the statutory rules and precedents.

• On resignation and forfeiture: Rule 101(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules is explicit that resignation entails forfeiture of past service. The only exception is Rule 101(b), where resignation is submitted to take up another appointment in which service counts for pension — but this requires prior approval/NOC, which petitioners never received.
• On “technical resignation”: The Court found that the petitioners’ resignations could not be termed “technical” because they were explicitly told that NOC was not being issued and that pension would not be admissible. Yet, they voluntarily reiterated requests for acceptance of resignation “as per rules” even after these warnings.
• On precedents cited by petitioners: Earlier rulings like Deo Krishna Mishra and Binay Kumar Thakur were distinguished. The Court noted that a Division Bench in State of Bihar v. Dr. Shahida Hassan (2010) had already overruled the earlier view that resignation simpliciter does not forfeit service. That Bench clarified that under Rule 101(a), resignation itself — unless covered by 101(b) — results in forfeiture, regardless of stigma or misconduct.
• On consent letters: Since the petitioners themselves gave written consent that government rules would apply, and they requested acceptance of resignation under those terms, their claim for pension later was inconsistent.

Decision

The Court upheld the Government’s 2016 notification. It ruled that:

• The petitioners’ resignation was not resignation simpliciter but resignation given after knowing and consenting to denial of pension.
• Under Rule 101(a) of Bihar Pension Rules, resignation entails forfeiture of past service.
• The writ petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit.

Thus, the petitioners were not entitled to pension and gratuity, though they could withdraw GPF, Group Insurance, and partial leave encashment.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• For government employees: The ruling clarifies that resignation, unless covered by technical resignation with prior approval for another qualifying service, leads to forfeiture of pensionary benefits. Employees must carefully consider consequences before resigning to join another organization.
• For administration: The decision strengthens the State’s position in service jurisprudence, ensuring consistency with Division Bench rulings. It prevents employees from later claiming pension after giving written consent to rules excluding such benefits.
• For NHAI deputations: Many state engineers join NHAI on deputation. This judgment warns them that absorption into NHAI without proper NOC may cost them their pension rights in Bihar service.

Legal Issues and Court’s Decision

• Whether resignation for absorption into NHAI entitled employees to pension and gratuity?
  • Court held No. Without NOC and prior approval, resignation leads to forfeiture under Rule 101(a).
• Whether petitioners’ resignation was “resignation simpliciter”?
  • Court held No. It was conditional and given despite knowledge of forfeiture rules.
• Are earlier judgments (e.g., Deo Krishna Mishra) still valid?
  • Court held No. They were overruled by Division Bench in Dr. Shahida Hassan (2010).

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Binay Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2019 (2) PLJR 885
• Deo Krishna Mishra v. State of Bihar, 2004 (1) PLJR 12

Judgments Relied Upon by Court

• State of Bihar v. Dr. Shahida Hassan, 2010 (2) PLJR 189
• State of Bihar v. Kailash Pati Chaturvedi, 2010 SCC OnLine Pat 88
• Syed Raza Ahmad Hussaini v. State of Bihar, 2007 SCC OnLine Pat 328

Case Title

1. Rajiv Nayanam v. State of Bihar & Ors.
2. Amrendra Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Numbers

1. CWJC No. 5045 of 2017
2. CWJC No. 5551 of 2017

Citation(s)

2021(1) PLJR 701

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah

Names of Advocates

• For Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Mr. Ranvijay Narain Singh, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Miss. Himanshi Singh
• For Respondents (State): Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambastha (SC 26), Mrs. Pushpanjali Sharma, Mr. Balram Kapri
• For NHAI: Mr. S.N. Pathak

Link to Judgment

MTUjNTA0NSMyMDE3IzEjTg==-6G4rluEeljo=

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.