ROHINI DOBYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the very outset I must express my serious anguish and displeasure towards the manner in which the cases are conducted by the State Counsels, 1 am told by Mr. Pradeep Modi, learned G.P.I, that earlier the file was allotted to the then G.P.I, who did not transfer the brief to him. It is the business of the office of the Advocate General, where the ministerial staffs are deputed, to see that files are duly handed over to the State counsels. Moreover, tine outgoing State counsels are supposed to hand over the briefs to the incoming State counsels.

(2.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the District Education Officer -cum -District Superintendent of Education. Dhanbad Circle he has rejected the representation of the petitioner which was filed in pursuance of the order dated 24.1.2000 passed in CWJC No. 3674/2000 R. In the aforesaid writ application No. 3674/ 2000R the petitioner represented before this Court that her husband, after working for so many years, died in harness on 1.8.1984 but the death -cum -retiral benefits were not paid to her. The writ petition was disposed of on 24.1.2000 by passing the following order :

(3.) THIS Court, in the earlier writ petition. specifically held that the petitioner approached this Court after 17 years. As noticed above, there is no prima facie evidence to suggest that the petitioners husband was in service in 1984 when he died. Had he been in service, the petitioner would have approached this Court at the earliest possible opportunity. It was only after 17/18 years the writ petition was filed for retiral benefits on the ground that her husband was in service in 1984 and died in harness.