Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further highlights that while the petitioner is being harassed following his retirement on 28.02.2023, Manikant Jha, who was listed immediately after the petitioner in the same enquiry report continued to work at the Primary Health Centre, Khutauna, under Respondent No. 6. The petitioner served continuously after his reinstatement in the year 2012, until his superannuation, was paid all retiral dues, and had his pension fixed. However, during the pendency of the present litigation, the authorities issued Memo No. 183 dated 05.02.2024(Annexure P/14), ordering the recovery of the entire amount of retiral dues previously paid to him.

35. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner finally obtained substantial relief through the order dated November 30, 2009, passed in CWJC No. 14379 of 2009 and analogous cases (Annexure-P12), wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the impugned enquiry report and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in their respective positions with all consequential benefits. In strict compliance with this judicial mandate, the petitioner was reinstated in service on May 17, 2012, vide Memo No. 1294 (Annexure-P13), and continued to serve as a Health Educator with full honesty and dedication. The petitioner eventually reached the age of superannuation and retired from Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026 service on September 30, 2021, while posted at the Primary Health Centre, Babubarhi, Madhubani. Following his retirement, all his post-retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GPF, and Group Insurance, were duly processed and paid, and he began receiving his monthly pension regularly.

118. On the basis of the materials available on record and the arguments advanced by the respective parties in all the cases, the following issues emerged for consideration, which are accordingly, being framed for adjudication of the disputed issues, which are as under:-

Issue 1: Whether the State can retrospectively alter a retired employee's status of appointment as "forged"
or "illegal" after the successful completion of a full tenure of service, the formal issuance of a Pension Payment Order (PPO), and the grant of all the retiral benefits, considering that pension is a vested right in the nature of "property"

Issue 3: Whether the State can legally challenge the validity of an appointment to infringe upon vested pension rights after the employer-employee relationship has been severed through unconditional superannuation, and whether the "termination" of a retired employee's service is a concept recognized by law in the absence of a formal departmental proceeding?

The unconditional superannuation of an employee, followed by the sanctioning of retiral benefits and the issuance of a regular pension, creates a definitive legal severance of the Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026 employer-employee relationship. Any attempt by the State to hold the initial appointment illegal or forged the service of a retiree without any show cause is a legal fallacy, as one cannot terminate a relationship that has already ceased to exist. In the absence of a departmental proceeding initiated during active service, the persons are no longer a "delinquent employee" but a "pensioner" whose rights are protected under Article 300A. Consequently, the State cannot retrospectively apply service- tenure remedies to a pensioner to bypass the specific procedural requirements and statutory protections afforded to retired persons, under the Bihar Pension Rule, 1950.