JUBEDA KHATOON Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the respondent Board on 13.4.2002, contained in Annexure 6, whereby the claim for payment of the amount from the Officers Welfare Fund and family pension have been rejected.

(2.) IN short the relevant facts are that the petitioners husband died in harness on 11.4.1979 while working on the post of Head Foreman at Barauni under the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board. Initially the petitioners husband joined the service of the Board as Technician, Grade I, on 26.2.1964 and later he was provisionally promoted to the post of Head Foreman vide notification dated 9.1.1979 on which post he continued till his death on 11.4.1979.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board. In the said counter affidavit it is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner was promoted as Head Foreman vide notification dated 9.1.1979. However, in paragraph 5 it is stated that for payment of post retiral benefits two types of provisions were existing in the Board at that time, i.e. G.P.F. and CPF. The employees who were the members of the G.P.F. scheme were paid pension and the members of C.P.F. scheme were paid a lump sum amount as per the Rules. It is asserted that the husband of the petitioner Late Chand Ali was the member of contributory provident fund prior to his promotion to the post of Head Foreman. Accordingly, due amount under the C.P.F. scheme has already been paid to the petitioner. According to the case of the Board, as per provisions contained in Memo No. PT 2,9.4/83 300F dated 29.7.1980 of Finance Department the family pension to the petitioner is not admissible. As regards the claim of the petitioner for payment of the amount from the Officers Welfare Fund, it is stated that the same is provided for such nominees of the Officers who are members of the said fund. The fact is that Late Chand Ali was not a member of the said Fund because he had neither applied for the membership of the said Fund nor had deposited the share money for the same. Learned counsel for the Board has thus submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of any amount from the Officers Welfare Fund.