In Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 2021, the Patna High Court delivered an oral judgment on 27 May 2021, rejecting a delayed appeal concerning pension benefits claimed by a retired government employee who had earlier served in the Indian Navy. The Bench, comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar, dismissed both the interlocutory application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself, upholding the Single Judge’s decision in CWJC No. 14254 of 2011.
The appellant had approached the High Court challenging the denial of pension benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules. He had served in the Indian Navy before joining the Bihar Military Police (BMP) and claimed that his previous military service should be counted towards qualifying service for pension under Rule 87 of the Bihar Pension Rules.
The Single Judge had earlier dismissed his petition, holding that the appellant failed to meet the mandatory conditions laid down under Rule 87. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench. However, the appeal was filed nearly six years late—specifically after a delay of 5 years and 355 days.
The appellant filed an interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of this delay. He contended that the delay occurred due to personal and procedural reasons beyond his control. However, the Court found that no satisfactory or sufficient cause had been shown to justify such an extraordinary delay.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the application for condonation of delay, making the main appeal non-maintainable. Nonetheless, the Bench proceeded to briefly examine the case on merits.
Upon examination, the Court reaffirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge that Rule 87 of the Bihar Pension Rules applies only to employees who have rendered service in the armed forces and subsequently joined the State Government provided they fulfil certain procedural conditions. The rule allows for previous military service to be counted for pension purposes only if the employee:
- Exercises an option within three months of joining the State Government service, and
- Deposits the amount of gratuity received from the previous service into the State treasury within the prescribed period.
The appellant, however, had neither exercised his option within the three-month window nor deposited the gratuity amount received from the Navy. In the absence of compliance with these mandatory requirements, the Court held that he was not entitled to count his previous military service toward pension computation in Bihar Government service.
The appellant had also relied upon a Circular issued by the Bihar Finance Department on 01 June 2005, arguing that it entitled him to the benefit of combined service for pension purposes. The Court categorically rejected this contention, observing that the 2005 Circular applied only to employees working within the State Government service—not to those who joined the State after serving in other sectors such as the armed forces.
Thus, even on merits, the Court found no error in the Single Judge’s reasoning and affirmed the earlier decision.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For Ex-Servicemen: This judgment clarifies that retired defence personnel who later join the Bihar Government cannot automatically claim pension benefits for their earlier military service unless they strictly comply with Rule 87 requirements.
- For Government Departments: The decision reinforces that procedural compliance under pension rules is mandatory. The Government is not obliged to condone delays or procedural lapses where rules specify strict timelines.
- For Future Litigants: The case highlights the importance of filing appeals within limitation periods and ensuring all procedural formalities are completed at the time of joining government service.
- For the General Public: The order upholds transparency and accountability in pension administration, ensuring that only those meeting the statutory conditions receive benefits.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision (with Reasoning)
- Issue 1: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the LPA.
- Decision: No. The Court found no valid explanation for a delay of nearly six years.
- Reasoning: The appellant’s grounds did not constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Issue 2: Whether the appellant was entitled to count his military service for pension under Rule 87 of the Bihar Pension Rules.
- Decision: No.
- Reasoning: The appellant failed to exercise his option within three months of joining and did not deposit his gratuity amount, as required under Rule 87.
- Issue 3: Whether the Finance Department Circular dated 01.06.2005 applied to the appellant’s case.
- Decision: No.
- Reasoning: The Circular applied only to employees serving within the State Government, not to those joining from the armed forces or other external services.
Case Title
Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 2021 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14254 of 2011 — Appellant vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
L.P.A. No. 44 of 2021 with I.A. No. 01 of 2021.
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 739
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar.
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Appellant: Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate.
- For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General; Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Assistant Counsel to AAG-3.
Link to Judgment
MyM0NCMyMDIxIzEjTg==-MQJdYp8cifA=
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.
