Arvind Kumar Mishra vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5521 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010290802026
======================================================
Arvind Kumar Mishra Son of Late Nityanand Mishra, Resident of Mohalla-
Pethiya Bazar, Near Kali Mandir, Danapur, P.S- Danapur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General-cum-Commandant-in-Chief, Bihar Home Guard
Police Force, Patna.
3. The Commandant, Bihar Home Guard Police Force, Head Quarter, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Home Guard, Bihar Home Guard Police Force,
Patna.
5. The Senior District Commandant, Bihar Home Guard Police Force, Patna.
6. Bimla Devi @ Shanti Devi, Daughter of Late Madheshwar Mishra, Resident
of C/o Bhola Mahto, North Mandiri, P.S.- Budha Colony, Distt- Patna-
800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Mistry, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Harshvardhan Shivsundaram,SC 16
Mr.Mahendra Prasad Verma, AC to SC 16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-11-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's
father was appointed as Adhinayak Anudeshak, Bihar Home
Guard, on 11.12.1982 and was subsequently dismissed from
service vide Memo No. 4943 dated 18.12.2017 on the ground of
contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first
marriage without prior permission. He was allegedly murdered
Patna High Court CWJC No.5521 of 2026 dt.02-11-2026
2/4
on 30.11.2018. The petitioner who is the son of the deceased
employee claims payment of P.F., L.I.C. and gratuity dues along
with interest.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is the son of the
deceased employee is seeking payment of the remaining retiral
dues payable to his family after the death of his father who was
posted as Adhinayak Anudeshak Grade-1 in Bihar Home Guard.
He submitted that his family has already lost both the father and
the mother, and is awaiting payment of the admissible retiral
dues of the deceased employee.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a substantial amount out of the admissible retiral
dues has already been paid to the family of the deceased
employee.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in
continuation of the earlier orders dated 05.10.2026 and
27.10.2026, as well as, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, and subsequent development particularly the fact
that a substantial amount of the admissible retiral dues has
already been paid to the petitioner being the biological son of
the deceased employee, this Court is of the opinion that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5521 of 2026 dt.02-11-2026
3/4
remaining admissible retiral dues must also be paid to petitioner
without any further delay along with the statutory interest which
is supported by the law laid down by the Apex court in the case
of State of Kerala and Others. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair
reported in 1985 SCC (1) 429 has reiterated that pension and
gratuity are valuable rights and constitute property of a retired
employee, and cannot be treated as a bounty. in the following
paragraphs, which are inter alia reproduced as under:
“1. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be
distributed by the Government to its employees on their
retirement but have become, under the decisions of this
Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and
any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement
thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of
interest at the current market rate till actual payment .
2. Usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production
of the L.P.C. (Last Pay Certificate) and the N.L.C. (No
Liability Certificate) from the concerned Departments
but both these documents pertain to matters, records
whereof would be with the concerned Government
Departments. Since the date of retirement of every
Government servant is very much known in advance we
fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the
requisite information and issuance of these two
documents should not be completed atleast a week
before the date of retirement so that the payment of
gratuity amount could be made to the Government
servant on the date he retires or on the following day and
pension at the expiry of the following month. The
necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to
a Government servant immediately after his retirement
cannot be over-emphasised and it would not be
unreasonable to diriect that the liability to pay penal
interest on these dues at the current market rate should
commence at the expiry of two months fro m the date of
retirement”
(emphasis supplied)
6. The above proposition of law is reiterated by the
Apex Court in the case of D.D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli
Patna High Court CWJC No.5521 of 2026 dt.02-11-2026
4/4
Vitran Nigam Ltd., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 .
7. Accordingly, this Court directs that the concerned
respondent authorities shall take all necessary steps to ensure
payment of the remaining admissible retiral dues to the
petitioner/family of the deceased employee namely late
Nityanand Mishra, well within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date NA
Transmission Date 06.11.2026