UMA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant on 01.08.1984 and he died in harness on 08.10.2004. The family pension and other retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner, the wife of the deceased employee and therefore, she moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1856 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 27.04.2005, directing the respondents to release the death-cum-retiral benefits with interest. The order was challenged by the State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 527 of 2005 which was dismissed by order dated 13.12.2005. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the State of Jharkhand also came to be dismissed by order dated 20.05.2009. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

(2.) The petitioner approached the authorities with a copy of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the claim for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme was considered by the authorities on 18.06.2009. By letter dated 18.06.2009, the grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme was ordered to be extended to the deceased employee. However, by order dated 31.07.2009, the said order was recalled, withdrawing the grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme. In the meantime, by orders both dated 16.07.2005, it was ordered that the deceased employee would be entitled for subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension and the benefit of the ACP Scheme would not be granted to him. Challenging these orders, the petitioner-wife of the deceased employee has approached this Court again.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly, the departmental proceeding initiated against the deceased husband of the petitioner was not concluded and therefore, the show-cause notice issued to the husband of the petitioner on 23.09.1998 remained an allegation only and since, the allegations were never proved against the husband of the petitioner, the impugned orders could not have been passed by the respondent-authority. The learned counsel has further submitted that, the impugned orders both dated 16.07.2005 and 31.07.2009 have been passed ignoring the orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.