BIBI KULSOOM KHATOON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal by the petitioner -appellant is directed against the judgment dated 20.7.2007 passed in W.P.S. No. 1815 of 2005 whereby the learned Single fudge dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner -appellant is not entitled to pensionary benefits as her husband had not completed minimum period of 20 years of service as required for getting of pensionary benefits.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: Petitioner's husband was in the service of State of Bihar from 13.9.1950 to 27.1.1968. Thereafter he joined the services of State Bank of India in the year 1968 and retired from the service of the Bank on 31st October, 1987. Petitioner's husband had filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2560 of 1997 (R) against State Bank of India claiming payment of pension, etc. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court holding that since the husband of the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service in the Bank, she was not entitled to claim pension from State Bank of India. However, liberty was given to the petitioner -appellant to move the State of Bihar for pension, if she is entitled to get pension since her husband rendered services from 13.9.1950 to 27.1.1968 under the State of Bihar. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.S. No. 1923 of 2005 seeking a direction upon the State of Bihar for payment of pension. The said writ petition was disposed of on 08.4.2004 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra to consider the claim of the petitioner -appellant and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra rejected the claim of the appellant for pension on the ground that total services of the petitioner's husband rendered in the State of Bihar was only 17 years, 3 months and 18 days. The Deputy Commissioner was, therefore, of the view that since the petitioner's husband did complete 20 years of service as required for getting pensionary benefits, her claim cannot be entertained. She then challenged the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra by filing W.P.S. No. 1815 of 2005.

(3.) THE only question therefore, which falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the period of 17 years, 3 months and 18 days of service, which was rendered by the petitioner's husband, is the qualifying period of service to entitle her to get pensionary benefits.