SHARDADEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application is the widow of late Ram Vinod Prasad Singh, who retired on 14-7-72 as Headmaster from Primary School, Dayalpur within the police station Raja Pakar in the district of Hajipur. She has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction commending the respondents to grant family pension to her and also to pay the arrears of the pension due to her husband from 14.7.72 to 15.12.74.

(2.) The short relevant facts are that the management and control of the school in question were taken over by the State Government with effect from 1.1.71 and all the teachers working were declared to be Government servants vide Bihar Government resolution dated 9.2.73. As already stated above, the husband of the petitioner retired from the said school on 14-7-72 and later died on 15-12-74. It is contended that as the pension of the husband for the period 14th July. 72 to 15th December, 74 was not paid and the family pension was not paid to the petitioner, she filed an application (annexure-1) before the District Superintendent of Education, Hajipur (respondent No. 3) on 1-12- 93 requesting him to apprise her rebut the steps being taken for payment of the same. The petitioner filed another application before respondent No. 3 on 20.12.93 (vide Annexure 2) re-iterating her claim for payment of the dues of pension of her husband as well as family pension to her since after the death of her husband. However, even after making repeated representations when the demand of the petitioner was not fulfilled by the authorities concerned, he filed the present writ application for the aforementioned relief.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and its officers (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4). In the said counter affidavit a plea has been taken that the relevant record is not available in the office of Vaishali, because the district Vaishali was not brought into being during the period when the husband of the petitioner retired. However, it is also contended that the writ petitioner is not entitled for family pension in accordance with rules of the department as contained in Government letter Nos. 1069 dated 23-6-77 and 1802 dated 7-6-76 (Anex. 'A' to the counter-affidavit). It is further stated that the family pension Rule was in vogue on 1-4-76 and the writ petitioner's husband died on 15-12-74. So, according to the respondents it is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.