Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In this case, the respondents having not paid the death-cum-retiral benefits, on the other hand having decided to recover the penal rent and electrical energy charge from widowpetitioner, the writ petition was preferred. 2. The husband of petitioner late Ramyad Thakur was in the services of the Bihar State Electricity Board (the Board for short). After 25 years of his service on the ground of absence from duty for 37 days, his service was treated to be terminated under the then CIause-24 of Standing Order vide order dated 24.4.1983. Against the said order, Sri Thakur moved before the authorities, which remained pending and he ultimately died on 26.6.1995. In the meantime, the family continued to remain in occupation of the Boards quarter. The petitioner, after death of Sri Thakur moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 6030/95 and challenged the order of termination. In the said case, Board appeared and offered to pay family pension of their own. In such background, petitioner also agreed not to press the petition for remaining grievance, except the relief for compassionate appointment of her son. It was brought to the notice of this Court that till the order of termination persists, the son may not get compassionate appointment. However, such apprehension was not accepted by this Court when disposed of the case on 17.9.1996 with following observation : "In my view, since the Board has already taken a generous view while granting family pension to the widow, such apprehension of the petitioner may not have any substance. If there is such circular to provide preference to the son of the deceased employee, then the respondent and authorities having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, shall grant indulgence in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this application is disposed of." It is pertinent to mention that validity of CIause-24 of Board Standing Order, which stipulated automatic termination, fell for consideration before this Court in Mohit Rams case, C.W.J.C. no. 29/93. The Clause-24 was held to be ultra vires vide Judgment dated 24.1.1994, passed in the said case. In view of aforesaid decision, the first writ petition was preferred by petitioner. In spite of Courts observation and undertaking given, petitioner was not paid family pension, nor her son was appointed on compassionate ground. Second writ petition, C.W.J.C. no. 29/93. The Clause-24 was held to be ultra vires vide Judgment dated 24.1.1994, passed in the said case. In view of aforesaid decision, the first writ petition was preferred by petitioner. In spite of Courts observation and undertaking given, petitioner was not paid family pension, nor her son was appointed on compassionate ground. Second writ petition, C.W.J.C. no. 11495/96 had to prefer by petitioner for payment of family pension and compassionate appointment of her son. In the said case, on 13.8.1997, this Court directed the Board to release admitted family pension and to take final decision in respect of compassionate appointment. After such decision, the Board fixed the family pension @ 375/- per month and arrears to the tune of Rs. 25,947/- calculated upto 31st August, 1997 but nothing was paid on the ground of adjustment against penal rent shown due to the extent of Rs. 62,675/-, @ 12 times of the original rent. It was also decided to recover further amount of Rs. 11,719.65 paise towards electrical energy charge. In the aforesaid background, the present (third) writ petition preferred for payment of retiral benefits; compassionate appointment of son with further prayer for exemption of penal rent and electricity charge in terms with Boards policy decision dated 3.6.1997. 3 Mr. Shivendra Kishore, counsel for the Board vehemently opposed the writ petition and took plea that even the petitioner was not entitled for family pension. According to him, the Board but because of generous attitude, gave undertaking of its own for payment of family pension, otherwise the petitioner was not entitled under the law. So far as death-cum-retiral benefits are concerned, it was submitted that the petitioner having not pressed the remaining grievance in the first writ petition, is not entitled for such benefits, nor can raise such grievance at this stage. Further, according to the respondents, late Ramyad Thakur having not died in harness, the son was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. In pursuance of Courts order, the original record relating to termination of deceased employee was produced. From the said record, it appears that vide Memo no. 475 dated 23.3.1983, the A.K.K., Supply Division, Hajipur asked explanation from him relating to absence from duty, giving reference of Ciause-24 of Standing Order. Another notice was issued on 26.3.1983 to which it appears that late Thakur submitted explanation. From the said record, it appears that vide Memo no. 475 dated 23.3.1983, the A.K.K., Supply Division, Hajipur asked explanation from him relating to absence from duty, giving reference of Ciause-24 of Standing Order. Another notice was issued on 26.3.1983 to which it appears that late Thakur submitted explanation. It further appears that the explanation was not accepted and Memo no. 55 was issued on 9.4.1983 to explain as to why action under C!ause-24 be not taken. The same followed by order of termination dated 20.4.1983. From the file, it appears that late Ramyad Thakur represented against the termination and took specific plea that he was on duty during the alleged period of absence. The Elec. Ex. Engg. asked him to produce evidence on 8.10.1983 vide his letter no. 1997 dated 5.10.1983. He was asked to appear on subsequent dates including 7.11.1983 as evident from letter no. 2067 dated 17.10.1983. It appears that inspite of his appearance and production of evidence, no final decision was taken on appeal, as evident from letters dated 21.10.1983 and 29.11.1983 of late Ramyad Thakur. The matter remained pending and enquiry on appeal continued even thereafter will be evident from Junior Engineers letter no. 280 dated 14.12.1985 and reminder of late Ramyad Thakur given on 30.6.1993. However, no final decision was taken till Ramyad Thakur died in 1995. Thereby one can understand the delay in moving the Court by widow when she moved for the first time in 1995. 5. The main question to be determined is whether the petitioner is entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits, including family pension and the appointment of the son on compassionate ground? If the order of termination dated 20.4.1983 is held to be illegal, the petitioner will be entitled for family pension and other death-cum-retiral benefits and the son can claim for compassionate appointment. On the other hand, if the said order dated 20.4.83 is treated to be final, the petitioner will not be entitled for family pension, nor can claim compassionate appointment of her son. She will be entitled for C.P.F., gratuity, leave encashment etc. So far as the stand of respondent-Board is concerned, the same cannot be appreciated. The stand taken by Board gives a picture as if it wants to act like a private master to deprive its servant and family of their original claim. Offer of family pension was initially given to pre-empt the other claim. So far as the stand of respondent-Board is concerned, the same cannot be appreciated. The stand taken by Board gives a picture as if it wants to act like a private master to deprive its servant and family of their original claim. Offer of family pension was initially given to pre-empt the other claim. 6. Admittedly, when the order of termination was issued on 20.4.1983, there was no provision for payment of pension/family pension laid down in respect of a workman of Board, Late Ramyad Thakur, a Lines Man was merely entitled for C.P.F. Gratuity and leave encashment. For the first time, scheme for pension-cum-G.P.F. was introduced w.e.f. 8.12.1987 by Boards Memo no. 130 dated 5.4.1988. In such case, widow of late Ramyad Thakur was neither entitled for family pension, nor the son for compassionate appointment, till the order of termination would have declared illegal by a competent authority/court of law. From the stand of the Board as was taken in C.W.J.C. no. 6030/95 and observation made by this Court on 17.9.96, one can draw a prima facie view that the Board was not to give effect to the order of termination so took generous view to grant family pension, which was the basis to make observation by this Court to provide preference to the son in the matter of appointment having regard to the peculiar facts of the case. 7. So far as penal rent for retention of quarter and electric charges is concerned, those questions neither raised, nor determined by this Court in their earlier writ petitions. The respondent-Board also chose not to raise such objection, nor asked permission to adjust the amount from family pension when they gave undertaking to pay family pension. If the order of termination would have declared illegal in the said writ, there would have no occasion for the Board to ask for penal rent, nor the electrical energy charge could have been asked for in view policy decision no. 2603 dated 3.6.1977 allowing free supply of energy to its workman. In the aforesaid background it was observed by me that the Board tried to pre-empt the claim by giving some offer in C.W.J.C. no. 6030/95. 8. 2603 dated 3.6.1977 allowing free supply of energy to its workman. In the aforesaid background it was observed by me that the Board tried to pre-empt the claim by giving some offer in C.W.J.C. no. 6030/95. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; stand taken by the petitioner; undertaking given by the Board before this Court and the observation as made in C.W.J.C. 6030/95, the Board has only two options i.e. either to ignore the order of termination dated 20.4.1983 for grant of benefit of family pension and other death-cum-retiral benefits or to provide the benefits taking into consideration the said order of termination and undertaking given. In case, the order of termination is not given effect, the Board will pay family pension from the date of death; G.P.F.; gratuity and leave encashment, treating the deceased employee to have continued in service till the date of death. In such case, the son will be entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. The petitioner cannot claim for arrears of salary of intervening period from 20.4.1983 upto the date of death in view of undertaking given before this Court, not to press such grievance. On the other hand, if the order of termination is accepted to be final, in spite of declaration of Clause-24 as ultra vires, the Board will be liable to pay C.P.F.; gratuity and leave encashment to which the employee was entitled as in April, 1983. In such case, while son will not be entitled for compassionate appointment, petitioner will be entitled for family pension in view of undertaking given by Board before this Court. 9. So far as penal rent and electrical energy charge is concerned, the Board may charge the same in accordance with their law, the family having continued from 20.4.1983 but in such case, they will be liable to pay such penal interest having not paid the C.P.F., gratuity and leave encashment to deceased employee immediately, which will be proportionate to the extent of penal rent. For example, if the Board charges certain % of the original rent as penal rent, it will have to pay the same % of penal interest towards C.P.F., gratuity and leave encashment for delayed payment to be calculated from the date of termination till the same is paid. For example, if the Board charges certain % of the original rent as penal rent, it will have to pay the same % of penal interest towards C.P.F., gratuity and leave encashment for delayed payment to be calculated from the date of termination till the same is paid. Similarly, if the Board charges 12 times of the original rent as penal rent, by the order of the Court will have to pay 12 times of C.P.F., gratuity and leave encashment as penal interest. However, as they have not paid the death-cum-retiral benefits to its employee/family for years together and the family in their turn have not vacated the quarter for equal number of years, the Board can adopt a compromise formula by not asking for penal rent or electrical energy charge. In such case, the petitioner will also not ask, nor claim for penal interest for delayed payment of death-cum-retiral benefits. 10. With the aforesaid observation, I remit the matter to the respondent-Board to take a decision in one or other way, as observed above. They may decide to make ineffective the order of termination or may take the same as final but will pay the benefits, as ordered above. An appropriate decision be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of one month and the consequential benefits in terms with the Courts observation made above, be paid within a period of two months thereof. The Chairman as also the Secretary of the Board are to ensure compliance of this order within total period of four months. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations/directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order, as to costs.