SMT. DHANBARTA KUER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. In this writ application the petitioner, widow of Late Yudheshwar Tiwary has made a prayer for quashing the order dated 27.9.2000 passed by the Director, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, holding that the petitioner is not eligible for grant of family pension.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Director, Secondary Education is palpably incorrect, in -as -much as, when husband of the petitioner was drawing pension, his widow, the petitioner after his death automatically becomes entitled for payment of family pension. In this context it has been submitted that admittedly the husband of the petitioner had retired as an Assistant Teacher in a recognized High School at Garh Nokha, in the district of Rohtas on 30.6.1980 upon completion of age of 62 years and he was paid provisional pension at the rate of Rs. 225.50 paise per month from the date of retirement upto 30.6.1982 which, however, was subsequently reduced to Rs. 75/ - per month with effect from 1.7.1980 with also recovery of excess amount beyond Rs. 75/ - per month. It is said that husband of the petitioner continued to get Rs. 75/ - per month as his monthly pension till his death, i.e. 20.4.1992 and repeated representation of the petitioner for grant of pension of husband of the petitioner as also the fixed monthly family pension of the petitioner did not yield any fruitful result and accordingly she had moved this Court by filing a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 11990 of 1999 which was disposed of by an order dated 29.2.2000 with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that when order of this Court was not complied the petitioner had filed a contempt application being M.J.C. No. 1836 of 2000 wherein the respondents came out with the impugned order dated 27.9.2000 claiming that the representation of the petitioner had been disposed of wherein it was held that the petitioner was not entitled for family pension.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the State as also counsel for the Accountant General on the strength of their counter affidavit had taken a clear stand that the petitioner was not entitled for payment of family pension, in -as -much as, husband of the petitioner was not a Government servant and whatever pension was being paid to the husband of the petitioner was under special scheme meant for non Governmental employees popularly known as 'triple benefit scheme'. Counsel for the respondents in this regard had also relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of 'Jai Prakash Dubey vs. State of Bihar & Ors.' reported in, 1986 P.L.J.R. 100 which according to them completely covers the case of the petitioner.