INDU KUER Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the office order, as contained in Memo No. 1259, dated 27.5.2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the claim of the petitioner for family pension and other pensionary benefits has been illegally rejected by the respondent No.2.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that husband of the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in Lower Primary School, Kodag, Latehar on 27.2.1962 and he joined there on 6.3.1962 and service book was also opened. For training the husband of the petitioner was deputed at Teacher's Training School, Rehla and after completion of training again he joined there. Further contention of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the order, dated 11.1.1968, the husband of the petitioner was transferred in L.P. School, Baidakala and he joined there on 25.1.1968 and at the relevant time his pay scale was fixed at Rs. 230-340/-. At the age of 31 years her husband died in harness i.e., on 13.7.1972. After death of the husband of the petitioner, she did not get any death-cum- retiral benefits, although the service book of her husband was verified and thereafter certificate was made by the BEO Patan on 9.7.1997 that the petitioner is entitled to get family pension. The grievance of the petitioner in respect of the above fact that she made a representation on 8.8.1997 to the respondent No. 2, which was forwarded by the concerned Headmaster of the school and also by BEO on Patan on 10.7.1997, but, there is no response from the side of the respondent No. 2. Last of all, the petitioner chose to file writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4566 of 2005, which was dismissed vide order, dated 29.9.2005 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), wherein the learned single Judge has opined that the said writ petition is at belted stage and it cannot be entertained after 33 years from the date of death of the deceased. The learned single Judge has also opined that this order will not debar the petitioner from approaching the concerned authorities. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order, dated 29.9. 2005, the petitioner preferred L.P.A No. 685 of 2006 which was allowed by an order, dated 15.2.2006 and the case was remitted back with direction to the concerned respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of family pension and other retiral benefits and they will pay the admitted dues along with 5% interest within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On failure to pay the admitted dues within the aforesaid period, the respondent will be liable to pay additional interest @12% on the dues from January, 2005 i.e. the year the writ petition was preferred. The learned Division Bench has also observed in the said order that if any adverse decision is taken by one or other authorities, they will communicate the grounds(s) to the appellant.