PANPATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the fourth case attempting to raise the same issue which was decided by a petition of 1976, by a petition of 1980, by a petition of 2003 and a Letters Patent Appeal now in 2004.

(2.) THE issue whether the resignation had been accepted or not became the subject matter of a petition filed by the petitioner husband Musafir Prasad Sinha. This was C.W.J.C. No. 2190 of 1980. For the record that these were the issues, the order of 12 November, 1981 is reproduced. This order in itself referred to an earlier petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2478 of 1976. The order reads thus: "The question which arises in this writ application is whether the petitioner submitted a joint letter of resignation with the respondent no. 2 and whether the petitioner's resignation was validly accepted. On an earlier occasion the matter had come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2478/76 which was heard and disposed of on 18.1.1978 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmad. The matter was remanded. Mr. Basudeva Prasad has referred to the judgment of the respondent no. 7 as contained in Annexure -12 and specially to the observations made in paragraphs 4 to 6 and contended that the authority was wrong in assuming that the scope of the enquiry was limited by the High Court. He suggested that all the questions arising in the case should have been decided by respondent no. 7 Mr. Radha Mohan appearing for the respondent no. 2 has challenged the interpretation of High Court 's Judgment which is Annexure -7 to the writ application. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for some time and going through the Annexure -7 it appears desirable that the present case is placed for hearing before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Ahmad. Let the writ application go out of the list of this Court."

(3.) AFTER the petitioner's husband died now the widow files a petition (C.W.J.C. No. 5467 of 2003) that all those earlier decisions were wrong and she is entitled to family pension. The Court held that the widow was not entitled to family pension as this is an appendage to the pension of the public servant provided he was entitled to receive it.