RUPA KUMARI Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Suchitra Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-JSEB and Mr. Ansuman Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-BSEB.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing order dated 08.08.2009 whereby representation of the petitioner for family pension has been dismissed; and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to provide family pension.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner was in government service, who died in harness. In terms of the Pension Rules, the dependent of the government employee is entitled for family pension up-to the age of 21 years. Mr. Prasad, further submits that in view of Annexure 2, which is a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, it is clear that the petitioner is having disability of 75 %. He further submits that in the Pension Adalat, held by the respondent-Board, there were certain observations with regard to petitioner and it was observed that appropriate order may be passed by the concerned authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing W.P (S) No. 3368 of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.02.2009 with a direction to respondent-General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, JSEB to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representation, which was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2009, which is impugned in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the said authority on its own finding came to the conclusion that the petitioner is having the problem of hearing and speech and in spite of that he has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that due to such handicap the petitioner is not prevented from appointment/livelihood. Mr. Prasad, further submits that it is evident from Annexure 2 that the petitioner is having 75 % of disability on point of hearing and speech and as such the impugned order which has also taken cognizance of the fact that the petitioner is suffering from that disability is fit to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for the family pension. He further draws attention of the Court to notification dated 03.09.1984 of the Finance Department, in particular Clause 2(i) and (iv), which is quoted herein below:'