State of Bihar vs. Retired Employees – Cut-Off Date Controversy

The legal battle between the State of Bihar and the retired employees revolves around the contentious Cut-Off Date issue. The petitioners, retired teaching and non-teaching staff of deficit grant minority colleges, are challenging the alleged discriminatory treatment post-retirement. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and affiliated Universities, argue about the authority’s discretion in setting cut-off dates. Let’s explore the nuances of this case.


  • Resolution No.1500 introducing the Triple Benefit Scheme was passed on 05.11.1980.
  • Chancellor approved the statute for the Triple Benefit Scheme on 18.11.1980.
  • Amendment to the statute was made on 25.11.1982.
  • Appellants are retired teaching and non-teaching employees of deficit grant minority colleges in Bihar.
  • Appellants allege discriminatory treatment between those who retired before and after 31.08.2010 regarding the Triple Benefit Scheme.
  • Appellants have impleaded the State of Bihar and affiliated Universities as respondents.
  • Appellant’s argument regarding violation of principles of natural justice was considered.
  • The Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
  • Impugned order dated 8.11.2017 did not favour the appellant’s endeavour.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Single Till Mechanism for HRAB Calculation: A Comprehensive Analysis


  • The plea on behalf of the appellants is based on a discrimative practice and the cut-off dates being provided, which is argued to be in violation of principles of law laid down in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India.
  • Learned counsel for the appellants argue that the cut-off dates are discriminative.
  • Learned counsel for the respondents point out that it is open to the State or the Corporation to change the conditions of service unilaterally, including terminal benefits and pensionary benefits.
  • Refers to the judgment in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Ratan Behari Dey & Ors. which opined that revising salaries, pay scales, and terminal benefits/pensioners’ benefits can be made as a concomitant of that power.

Also Read: Ineligibility of Resolution Professional and Resolution Applicant – Revisiting the Correct Interpretation of Section 29-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code


  • In 1998, a representation was made to extend the Triple Benefit Scheme to employees in deficit colleges.
  • After enquiries, on 18.01.2011, a resolution was passed extending the Scheme to deficit colleges.
  • The extended Scheme did not form part of the original terms and conditions of employment.
  • The Amendment came into effect on 15.01.2014 with a cut-off date of 31.08.2010.
  • The benefits were provided retrospectively from the date of the Cabinet decision.
  • Government decisions on financial implications need leeway, especially for non-constituent unit colleges.
  • The Executive authority has the discretion to fix a particular date for various reasons including economic conditions and administrative circumstances.
  • Court should not interfere in the fixation of a cut-off date by the Executive unless it leads to blatantly capricious or outrageous results.
  • Exercise of judicial restraint is necessary, and matters of fixing cut-off dates should be left to the Executive authorities.
  • Government should have leeway and freedom in fixing cut-off dates for schemes or benefits.
  • Financial implications should be considered while extending benefits, and retrospective effect can be given based on the rationale of the date of the decision.
  • Absence of arbitrariness and rationality should be the basis for the applicability of cut-off dates in amendments to schemes or statutes.

Also Read: Selection and Appointment of Judicial Officers in Himachal Pradesh


  • The court upheld the claim made by Petitioner A in relation to the RPC violation
  • Respondent X was mandated to take corrective action to address the RPC violation
  • The judgement highlighted the importance of upholding ethical standards in RPCs
  • Petitioner A’s concerns regarding the RPC were deemed valid by the court
  • The court emphasized the need for accountability in cases involving RPC violations


Case Number: C.A. No.-000990-000992 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *