H K TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIVA Kirti Singh, J. - This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was initially filed by Smt. Sheo Kumari Devi wife of late Bhola Nath Tripathi, praying for a mandamus upon the respondents to fix and revise the pension including the family pension of her late husband who retired as an Assistant Teacher from the service of a recognised High School on 26.9,76. Subsequently the original writ petitioner died and she has been substituted by her heirs.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY late Bhola Nath Tripathi was entitled, on his retirement to a triple benefit scheme which was introduced vide notification no. 3431 dated 4th September, 1964 (annexure c to the counter affidavit of respondent -2). A perusal of annexure -c shows that the employees of non -government elementary and secondary schools recognised by the government were provided with triple benefits of contributory provident fund, the group Insurance and pension in place of the earlier benefit of contributory provident fund only. Till retirement of Bhola Nath Tripathi the aforesaid scheme was in force and hence he received the benefits of the same and also received pension of Rs. 75/ - per month fixed under the said scheme. The petitioner 's grievance is that the said amount of pension should have been revised from time to time as per decision of the State Government in that regard but the same was arbitrarily not done and therefore till his death on 4.3.92 continued to receive only Rs. 75/ - per month as pension. The second grievance of the petitioner is that after the death of Bhola Nath Tripathi, his widow Smt. Sheo Kumari Devi should have been paid family pension. The real dispute between the parties is with regard to this claim.

(3.) IN reply to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar referred to the original order dated 29.11.78 which has been annexed as annexure A to the counter affidavit of respondent no.5. Paragraph 1 of the said order contains five conditions governing grant of benefits of G.P.F. and pension (including family pension and gratuity). Condition no.3 is clear and categorical that such benefits will be made available only to employee retiring on or after 1.4.78. As a matter of fact annexure 3, the circular dated 30th August, 1980 also does not help the case of the petitioner because paragraph 4 thereof relates to only such employees who were in service on or after 1.4.78 and therefore, the submission that by annexure 3 the new scheme introduced with effect from 1.4.78 and which provides for family pension was made applicable even to those employees who retired before 1.4.78 is clearly untenable and unacceptable. As a matter of fact annexure 3 was issued only by way of clarification and for removal of certain doubts with regard to actual implementation of scheme dated 29.11.78 and it never modified the basic conditions prescribed in the government order dated 29.11.78.