DEOMUNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner's husband who was Class-III employee in Civil Court, Dhanbad, died on 6th February 2008 during his service. The petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application to direct the concerned respondent to pay her family pension and other death-cum-retiral dues. The petitioner's husband was granted the benefits of two ACP during his service, the first ACP with effect from 9th August 1999 and second ACP with effect from 19th May 2003. These financial upgradations were further confirmed by the Secretary, Law (Justice) Department, Government of Jharkhand on 10th February 2011 which has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the concerned Secretary (Law).

(2.) However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the District Accounts Officer, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 6), on the point of verification of the relevant entries in the service book of the deceased employee whether he had passed the departmental examination before the grant of the said ACP, has withheld the sanction of final pension to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the wake of due confirmation of the grant of ACP by the Secretary, Law (Justice) Department, and after the death of the employee concerned on 6th February 2008, at this stage, there is no justification for the concerned respondent no. 6 to withhold the pensionary dues on such issue without any show-cause or notice to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, her husband had entered into service on 28th May 1979 and on completion of 28 years 8 months and 8 days of service he died in harness on 6th February 2008. Therefore, on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service respectively, he was otherwise also entitled for grant of ACP. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said benefits have been granted after due process and screening of records of the deceased employee and which has been duly confirmed by the Secretary, Law. At this stage, respondent District Accounts Officer had no justification to withhold the same.