Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 282 (PAT)

Neelam Devi v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-27

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2002
Judgment 1. A letter dated 1 October, 2001 was written by one Neelam Devi claiming that her husband had died and that she had not received the pension, the arrears of pension, the increased pension and consequential arrears. She mentioned in her letter that she was in straightened and could not in effect, approach the Court and for two years she has been running from one office to another but no step has been taken by the State department to deliver the pension to her and the arears which were due to her husband. Since the matter related to a widow of a retired Government servant complaining of so much delay in payment of pension, the letter to the Court was registered as a letter petition. 2. Notices on this petition were given to the State of Bihar, the District Magistrate, Purnea, The Director, Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna, The District Provident Fund Officer, Purnea, The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea and The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Court requested counsel at the Bar Mr. M.R Gupta to act as a friend to the widow who had written the letter and also an Amicus Curiae. 4. Facts mentioned by this widow in her letter turned out to be correct. She had not received the arrears of pension and the difference to which her husband would have been entitled to had he been given the correct designation. An appeal was pending before the Commissioner, Purnea Division, by which the designation of her husband as a state employee was to see a change so that he could retire as an Office Superintendent. 5. In the circumstances, the grievance of the widow was not unfounded. The notice issued by this Court set the respondents arrayed in motion. It was accepted as a fact that her husband filed a case as Service Appeal No. 20/25 of 1993-94 on which the Commissioner, Purnea Division had passed an order that the gradation list be corrected. He had been given the designation of an Office Superintendent. The pension paper had not been rectified to incorporate the change in the gradation. It was accepted as a fact that her husband filed a case as Service Appeal No. 20/25 of 1993-94 on which the Commissioner, Purnea Division had passed an order that the gradation list be corrected. He had been given the designation of an Office Superintendent. The pension paper had not been rectified to incorporate the change in the gradation. Consequently, neither the arrears were paid to her husband while he was in service nor the widow received the arrears of pension which would have accrued to her husband with a promotion granted to the post of an Office Superintendent. 6. The Court is not going into the lapses which may have happened in the office of the respondents. Suffice it to say that the husband of the widow was entitled to receive the benefits of promotion and these were to be reflected in pension. 7. Today, it is reported by counsel for the State and the Union of India alike that the pension payment order has been in the name of the widow. The arrears of the pension after reckoning the promotion which was granted to her husband were computed. The arrears which her husband may have been entitled to and the arrears of pension due to her were calculated and paid. Her monthly pension as of date has been shown as Rs. 1964/- (rupees one thousand nine hundred and sixty four). The arrears paid to her has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the affidavit as Rs. 21,534.50/- 8. In the circumstances that the arrears have been paid and the widow has been delivered the corrected pension payment order and accordingly, payment against family pension has been reckoned, this Court will now consign the record. 9. But the Court will need to put a parting remark on the record that this does not reflect the correct approach on behalf of the State that the persons who are to receive pensions have to spend a colossal energy to receive their post retirement dues. The Court reminds the State Government that for all delayed pensions, the incumbent would be entitled to receive interest. In this regard the State would need to be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in re State of Kerala and Ors. V/s. M. Padmnabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 .