JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was initially filed by Smt. Sheo Kumari Devi wife of late Bhola Nath Tripathi, praying for a mandamus upon the respondents to fix and revise the pension including the family pension of her late husband who retired as an Assistant Teacher from the service of a recognised High School on 26.9.1976. Subsequently the original writ petitioner died and she has been substituted by her heirs. 2. Admittedly late Bhola Nath Tripathi was entitled, on his retirement to a triple benefit scheme which was introduced vide notification no. 3431 dated 4th September, 1964 (annexure c to the counter affidavit of respondent-2). A perusal of annexure-c shows that the employees of non-government elementary and secondary schools recognised by the government were provided with triple benefits of contributory provident fund, the group Insurance and pension in place of the earlier benefit of contributory provident fund only. Till retirement of Bhola Nath Tripathi the aforesaid scheme was in force and hence he received the benefits of the same and also received pension of Rs. 75/- per month fixed under the said scheme. The petitioner's grievance is that the said amount of pension should have been revised from time to time as per decision of the State Government in that regard but the same was arbitrarily not done and therefore till his death on 4.3.1992 continued to receive only Rs. 75/- per month as pension. The second grievance of the petitioner is that after the death of Bhola Nath Tripathi, his widow Smt. Sheo Kumari Devi should have been paid family pension. The real dispute between the parties is with regard to this claim. 3. The triple benefit scheme as per 1964 rules does not contain any provision for family pension. Provision for family pension existed from before only with regard to government employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a circular of the Government of Bihar in the department of Education bearing resolution no. 1775 dated 30th August, 1980 (annexure-3) for advancing an argument that the triple benefit schemes of 1964 was subsequently replaced by another scheme introduced vide Government order no. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a circular of the Government of Bihar in the department of Education bearing resolution no. 1775 dated 30th August, 1980 (annexure-3) for advancing an argument that the triple benefit schemes of 1964 was subsequently replaced by another scheme introduced vide Government order no. 4018 dated 29.11.1978 by which employees of non-government recognised schools fulfilling the prescribed conditions were given the benefit of general provident fund, gratuity and pension including family pension on the lines such benefits were available to government employees. Relying upon paragraph-4 of the circular dated 30th August, 1980 learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from a bare perusal of the said paragraph it appears that the benefit of family pension etc. was made available to all the employees from the date of retirement. 4. In reply to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar referred to the original order dated 29.11.1978 which has been annexed as annexure A to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 5. Paragraph 1 of the said order contains five conditions governing grant of benefits of G.P.F. and pension (including family pension and gratuity). Condition no. 3 is clear and categorical that such benefits will be made available only to employee retiring on or after 1.4.1978. As a matter of fact annexure 3, the circular dated 30th August, 1980 also does not help the case of the petitioner because paragraph 4 thereof relates to only such employees who were in service on or after 1.4.1978 and therefore, the submission that by annexure 3 the new scheme introduced with effect from 1.4.1978 and which provides for family pension was made applicable even to those employees who retired before 1.4.1978 is clearly untenable and unacceptable. As a matter of fact annexure 3 was issued only by way of clarification and for removal of certain doubts with regard to actual implementation of scheme dated 29.11.1978 and it never modified the basic conditions prescribed in the government order dated 29.11.1978. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 470 , in support of his aforesaid contention. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 470 , in support of his aforesaid contention. However, upon a perusal of the said judgment it appears that the said judgment was delivered with regard to claim of an employee of Nationalised elementary school whose status as a government servant is not in question and hence it was held that the scheme of family pension applicable to government servant was available to the petitioner of that case also. Thus, the aforesaid judgment is clearly distinguishable in the context of present controversy. It is useful to refer to a Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sona Devi vs. The State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 7061 of 1994) disposed of on 16.1.1998. In that case the facts were similar to the present case and in order to get the benefit of family pension a question was raised that the cut-off date of 1.4.1978 for the purpose of benefit of family pension was arbitrary and without any basis. After considering several authorities of the Apex Court this Court finally held the said cut off date as valid and accordingly the said writ application was dismissed. 6. In view of aforesaid actual and legal position, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, so far as claim for family pension is concerned and accordingly the prayer is rejected. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, however, referred to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition to highlight the fact that pension of Bhola Nath Tripathi under the triple benefit scheme was never revised although the State Government had revised the same from time to time. In reply to this grievance a reply in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2, Accountant General Bihar is relevant and the same shows that the Government of Bihar in Education Department vide its letter no. 1915 dated 26.9.1987 fixed Rs. 160/- including relief with effect from 26.9.1987 and thereafter no order was issued to revise the rate of pension under triple benefit scheme. 2, Accountant General Bihar is relevant and the same shows that the Government of Bihar in Education Department vide its letter no. 1915 dated 26.9.1987 fixed Rs. 160/- including relief with effect from 26.9.1987 and thereafter no order was issued to revise the rate of pension under triple benefit scheme. Although learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar pleaded that he has no instruction on this issue but keeping in view the specific details of the order furnished by respondent no. 2, in my view the petitioner is entitled for a limited relief that in case such a letter as mentioned above has been issued by the Government of Bihar revising the earlier fixed pension under the triple benefit scheme then this benefit must be given to the petitioners the legal heirs of late Bhola Nath Tripathi in case such benefit of revised rate of pension had not already been paid to Bhola Nath Tripathi. Hence respondent no. 2 is directed to verify the aforesaid claim of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order and in case it is found that benefits of revised pension at the rate of Rs. 160/- was available and has not been paid to the petitioners then the same should be paid to the petitioners within the aforesaid period of three months. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed in part only to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.