Bihar Teacher’s 9-Year Suspension-Period Salary Claim Gets 6-Week Review, While Patna HC Orders Admissible Retiral Dues Paid

The petitioner sought unpaid salary for the period from 19 November 2014 to 10 January 2024, together with pension under the NPS, gratuity, leave encashment and interest.

He contended that he had been kept under suspension during the relevant period, that no disciplinary proceeding or penalty followed, and that similarly situated employees had received continuity of service and salary arrears.

The respondents produced an order dated 15 September 2026 rejecting his claim.

The Court noted that an earlier order in CWJC No. 14138 of 2014 had permitted the petitioner to continue in service until superannuation, but the rejection order did not explain why his case differed from those of the employees he cited.

The State also could not confirm whether disciplinary proceedings had been initiated after the petitioner’s suspension.

The Court relied on the principle in Constable Uma Shankaran v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 6903–6904 of 2020, decided 19 January 2026, that back wages are not automatic when dismissal is set aside, but an employee prevented from working by the employer’s unlawful action may have a legitimate claim to the remuneration lost; the question of gainful employment may also be relevant.

It applied State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210, and the principles in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, that pension and gratuity are earned rights and constitute property protected by Article 300-A of the Constitution.

Under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, pension may be withheld or withdrawn only in the circumstances specified by the Rule, including a finding of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss in departmental or judicial proceedings; the Rule does not authorise withholding pension while such proceedings are merely pending.

The Court also referred to the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, in considering the challenge to the authority’s decision.

The Court found that the rejection order gave no cogent reason for treating the petitioner differently from the employees whose cases he had identified, and that he had not been given an opportunity of hearing.

The State could not establish that any disciplinary proceeding had followed the suspension.

In those circumstances, the Court held the rejection of the salary claim unlawful and treated the claim as legitimate, while directing the Additional Chief Secretary to examine the petitioner’s service particulars and the decisions concerning the cited comparators before making a reasoned decision on the salary claim.

As to retiral benefits, the absence of any departmental or judicial proceeding or finding of misconduct meant that withholding benefits otherwise admissible to the petitioner was impermissible under the principles governing Rule 43(b).

It declined to remit the matter to the District Programme Officer and instead directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, to obtain the petitioner’s service particulars within one week and decide his salary claim for the suspension period, after examining the treatment of similarly situated employees, within six weeks.

The respondents were also directed to ensure payment of all retiral dues admissible to the petitioner under law.

The writ petition was disposed of.