Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court addressed the pension entitlements of university professors and staff appointed before January 1, 2005. The case arose when several retired employees of a university in Bihar approached the court, claiming they were unfairly denied full pension benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, despite serving for extended periods in sanctioned posts.
The petitioners argued that although they were appointed before January 1, 2005—the date from which the New Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) was introduced in Bihar—the authorities were wrongly treating their appointments as post-2005 recruitments. This misinterpretation, they claimed, denied them access to the benefits available under the Bihar Pension Rules of 1950, including gratuity, family pension, and regular pension.
The court carefully examined the history of the petitioners’ appointments. Most had joined their respective universities in the 1980s and 1990s in sanctioned posts. However, due to delays in formal regularization or confusion about funding sources (State vs. university), their service status remained clouded. This ambiguity allowed the authorities to argue that their appointments were not “regular” before 2005, thereby excluding them from the old pension scheme.
The High Court firmly rejected this reasoning. It held that the decisive factor for pension eligibility is the date of appointment against a sanctioned post, not the date of regularization or confirmation. The Court emphasized that employees who had been working full-time on sanctioned posts prior to 2005 are eligible for pension under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
Furthermore, the court clarified that the new pension scheme (NPS) is applicable only to those who were substantively appointed on or after January 1, 2005. Therefore, denying pension benefits to the petitioners amounted to an arbitrary and discriminatory act, violating Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality).
The court directed the concerned university and government authorities to treat the service of the petitioners as qualifying service under the old pension rules and to grant them all consequential benefits, including regular pension and gratuity. It also observed that non-payment of dues over such a long time caused unnecessary financial hardship to retired employees who had served the educational institutions with sincerity and dedication.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment holds substantial importance for retired university staff and professors across Bihar who were appointed before 2005 but denied pension benefits due to administrative confusion or delayed regularization. It sets a clear precedent that the date of appointment, not the administrative label of “regularization,” determines pension eligibility.
The decision protects the rights of teaching and non-teaching staff working in state universities and reaffirms the duty of the State and universities to honour service benefits, especially after retirement. It also curbs arbitrary interpretations of the pension rules by ensuring that deserving employees are not unjustly excluded from their entitlements.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether university staff appointed before January 1, 2005, but regularized later, are entitled to old pension benefits?
- Yes. The court held that employees appointed before 2005 against sanctioned posts are entitled to benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
- Can delayed regularization or funding ambiguity affect pension eligibility?
- No. The court stated that such delays cannot deny a person their rightful pension if the appointment was genuine and against a sanctioned post.
- Does the new pension scheme (NPS) apply retrospectively to those appointed before 2005?
- No. It applies only to those substantively appointed on or after January 1, 2005.
Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)
- State of Bihar vs. Devendra Prasad & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2022)
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)
- State of Bihar vs. Devendra Prasad & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2022)
- Sudhir Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 13804 of 2021
Case Title
CWJC No. 4649 of 2019
Case Number
CWJC No. 4649 of 2019
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 243
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Noori, Advocate (for the petitioners)
- GP-5 (for the State of Bihar)
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNDY0OSMyMDE5IzEjTg==-9X83Elmf3As=
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.
