LAWS(JHAR)-2017-8-155

KUNTA KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

Decided On August 31, 2017
Kunta Kunwar Appellant
V/S
State Of Jharkhand And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claiming death-cum-retiral benefits and for fixation of family pension, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Husband of the petitioner was appointed on 19.08.1969 as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Deori Khurd, Husainabad (North). He died in harness on 20.01974. Thirty-two years thereafter the petitioner allegedly approached the respondent-authority in the year, 2006 for pensionary benefits, and she has approached this Court even Ten years thereafter, by filing this writ-petition on 03.08.2016. On the question of delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to decision in Ajay Hazam v. Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi & Ors. [LPA No. 286 of 2015], submits that there is no limitation for raising a claim for retiral benefits. On this, the least that can be observed is that laches, however, is one of the aspects which has to be considered by the Court while adjudicating a claim in a writ proceeding. On merits, the respondents have pleaded that the school in which the husband of the petitioner was employed was taken over by Government of Bihar, as per Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over Control) Act, 1976, by Notification dated 31.11976. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that a decision to take over the school was already taken by the State Government vide Resolution dated 09.01973 and since husband of the petitioner died thereafter, he must be deemed to be a Teacher in the nationalized school. This contention is bereft of substance. May be a decision was taken by the State Government on 09.01973 to take over primary schools, the fact remains that only after the 1976 Act was enforced, the schools governed thereunder can be deemed to be taken-over by the State Government. The scheme for pension and gratuity came into effect from 01.04.1976.

(3.) In the above facts, since the date on which the school was taken over husband of the petitioner had already died, he was not entitled for post-retiral benefits.