ARCHANA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been preferred by the widow of the deceased employee. Prayer is to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the Family Pension, Gratuity, Group Insurance and unutilized leave encashment of 300 days as per the Rules.

(2.) The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to pay the salary arrears. Relief has also been prayed for a direction to the respondents to make the payment of Group Insurance and Provident Fund amount to the petitioner with the accrued interest thereon till date and a direction to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 11 lakhs as has been directed to be paid to the petitioner by the State Human Rights Commission vide order dated 05.11.2018 passed in Case No. 6703 /2017.

(3.) The admitted fact of the case is that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar. He had joined the service on 04.02.1988 but according to the petitioner her husband was removed from service on 29.01.2016 after 28 years of regular service along with 14 other employees on the ground that they were not validly appointed by the then Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Ranchi. It is a matter of record that the matter relating to termination was challenged by filing writ applications before the Hon'ble Court. The divergent view expressed by the two Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court led to a reference to the Full Bench whereafter the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court presided over by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice went into the issue and ultimately held that the appointment of the petitioners were totally illegal and arbitrary. The arguments made on behalf of the petitioners in those cases that their cases would be covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 (3) and State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M. L. Keshari, 2010 9 SCC 247 was also rejected and the Hon'ble Full Bench specifically held that those judgments cannot be pressed into service to regularize totally illegal service of the writ petitioners.