Facts
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Engineer who superannuated on 31 October 2002, was granted first and second Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits with effect from 9 August 1999.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4The department fixed his pay under orders issued in 2008 and, following a reference to the Finance Department, issued a fresh pay-fixation order on 19 July 2022. The District Accounts Officer subsequently reported that the fixation was correct.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4The petitioner challenged the calculation of his retiral dues and pension, contending that it did not accord with prior High Court decisions concerning Reducible Personal Pay (RPP), and sought payment with interest. The State opposed the petition on the ground of delay, noting that the petitioner had approached the Court about 16 years after the 2008 order.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 2–4Issues
1. Whether RPP could be excluded when calculating the petitioner’s last pay drawn and fixing his pension.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 5–72. Whether the petitioner’s pension should be refixed in light of the cited coordinate Bench decisions, notwithstanding the State’s objection of delay and the 2022 pay-fixation order.
Source reference: pp. 2, 4–5, paras. 4, 7–9Law Applied
The Court considered Rule 22(i)(a)(i), which it stated addresses the components relevant to calculation when fixing pension.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5It also relied on the Finance Department Notification No. PC-01/99-11556 dated 22 December 1999 and the decisions in Shobhit Rai v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 18233 of 2016 (2 May 2019), Singhasan Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 18370 of 2009 (26 June 2013), and Akhileshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 14287 of 2008 (10 July 2014). Those decisions held that RPP cannot be excluded in calculating last pay drawn and fixing pension.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Reasoning
The Court found that the governing rule and the cited coordinate Bench decisions required RPP to be included in the calculation of last pay drawn for pension purposes.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 5–6It therefore concluded that the petitioner’s pension required refixation in accordance with those decisions, and directed respondent no. 4 to recall the 19 July 2022 order and undertake the refixation.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Holding
The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 4 to refix the petitioner’s pension in accordance with law and the cited coordinate Bench decisions, completing the exercise within six weeks of communication of the judgment.
The Accountant General, Bihar, was also directed to comply with those decisions. The Court did not expressly grant the petitioner’s claim for interest.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10Original Court PDF
Bijay Kumar SinghvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
