CHANDRA BATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for fixing an early date of hearing.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner while in service was served a charge-memo. on 20.06.1992. The husband of the petitioner retired as Forest Range Officer on 30.04.1993. An F.I.R. was lodged on 14.08.1992 being Deoghar P.S. Case No. 343 of 1992 corresponding to G.R. No. 1192 of 1992. After the trial, the husband of the petitioner was convicted by order dated 25.02.2006. After the retirement of the husband of the petitioner, the departmental proceeding was concluded and a final order dated 20.06.2002 was passed whereby recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,78,790.64/- was ordered. Challenging the recovery part of the order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3011 of 2008 which was disposed of by order dated 12.02.2009 directing the respondent to pass a fresh order in terms of the procedure prescribed under the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 07.10.2009 has been passed.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the order of recovery of Rs. 4,78,790.64/-. The respondents have taken a stand that not only in the departmental proceeding, in criminal case also the husband of the petitioner was found guilty and therefore, the charge against the husband of the petitioner stood proved. After the death of the husband of the petitioner though family pension was ordered to be paid to the petitioner, but since recovery of Rs. 4,78,790.64/- was to be made, the family pension to the petitioner was not released. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once the pension to the husband of the petitioner was sanctioned vide order dated 16.06.2004, the family pension to the petitioner could not have been stopped by the respondent-authority. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once pension payment order has been issued by the government, only the name can be substituted and therefore, the name of the petitioner was to be substituted, and grant of family pension was to be made. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that by order dated 16.06.2004, the pension order was issued and though, within three years of such date, the respondent-State was authorised to modify/alter the pension of the husband of the petitioner in terms of Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, however, no such order was passed in the present case, and therefore, no recovery from the family pension of the petitioner could have been effected. It is further submitted that even assuming but not admitting that the recovery from the family pension of the petitioner can be effected, it can be recovered only to the tune of the amount as ordered in the final order dated 20.06.2002 and the entire family pension to the petitioner cannot altogether be stopped.