Non-speaking denial of pension and retiral benefits is invalid; authorities must reassess claims using complete service records.

The petitioner was appointed as a Travelling Animal Husbandry Officer in the Palamu Division on 17 April 1975. He was paid salary until 1 June 1991, remained absent on account of illness from 1 June 1991 to 21 November 1999, and thereafter rejoined service on 21 November 1999 upon producing a medical fitness certificate. He continued to receive salary in the applicable pay scale until his superannuation on 31 July 2007.

The petitioner sought regularisation of the period of absence, payment of arrears of salary, and consequential pensionary and retiral benefits.

An earlier order dated 22 February 2012 in W.P.(S) No. 1141 of 2003 required consideration of his total length of service. His claim was rejected by the competent authority in 2012 and again by order dated 13/16 June 2026.

During the proceedings, the Court allowed the petitioner’s interlocutory application to add a challenge to the 2026 rejection order.

The petitioner contended that the 2026 decision was mechanical and failed to consider the medical fitness certificate, joining report, original service book, and other departmental records. The State defended the order as a conscious decision based on the relevant materials.

Whether the order dated 13/16 June 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for salary arrears, pension, and other retiral benefits was vitiated for being mechanical, non-speaking, and passed without proper consideration of the departmental records.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration of his service particulars and consequential fixation and payment of admissible pensionary and retiral benefits.

Whether pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits could be withheld without authority of law.

The Court referred to the Bihar Service Code, particularly Rules 149–271, 176, 178, 179, 181–183 and 185, which were relied upon by the petitioner to contend that the period of absence could be dealt with by adjustment against admissible leave or conversion into extraordinary leave in accordance with law.

The Court applied Article 300-A of the Constitution, under which no person may be deprived of property except by authority of law.

Relying on State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, AIR 2013 SC 3383, and the principles recognised in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, and Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330, the Court held that pension and pensionary benefits constitute a legally protected property interest and cannot be withheld on the basis of non-statutory administrative instructions.

The Court further applied the requirement that an administrative decision affecting such rights must be reasoned and based on due consideration of the relevant material.

The Court found that the petitioner had placed the medical fitness certificate, joining report dated 21 November 1999, original service book, and supporting documents on the departmental record. These materials were directly relevant to determining the character of the absence period and the petitioner’s qualifying service.

Despite their availability, the Secretary rejected the claim without adequately considering the service particulars or assigning proper reasons. The Court therefore characterised the decision as mechanical, non-speaking, and suggestive of a predetermined approach.

Applying Article 300-A and the principle that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld without statutory authority, the Court held that the rejection order could not stand.

Rather than itself calculating the benefits or finally regularising the disputed period, the Court directed the competent authority to examine the complete service record and determine the benefits admissible in law.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Dairy, Fisheries and Animal Resources, Government of Bihar, was directed to call for and examine the petitioner’s service particulars, fix his pension and all admissible retiral dues under the applicable rules, and ensure payment within six weeks from the date of receipt or communication of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.