Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 468 (JHR)

Bibi Kulsoom Khatoon v. State of Jharkhand

2008-04-16

D.K.SINHA, M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
Order 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 Judge 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 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 8.4.2004 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 (sic-not?) 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 Deputy Commissioner was, therefore, of the view that since the petitioner's husband did (sic-not?) 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 learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for pensionary benefits on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not completed minimum period of service which is required for getting pensionary benefits. The said judgment has been challenged by the petitioner in this appeal. 4. 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. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in this appeal, it has been categorically stated that the husband of the petitioner-appellant was initially appointed as Poddar in the Treasury of Chatra Sub-Division in the district of Hazaribagh in 1950. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra vide his office order no.181 dated 27.1.1968 relieved the husband of the petitioner from service of the State of Bihar to enable him to join in the State Bank of India, Bokaro. The respondents' case is that the petitioner's husband, late Md. Tahir, was in service only for 17 years, 3 months and 18 days. he does not qualify for pension from the State Government as per provisions in Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code and Rule 150(A) of the Pension Rules. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra rejected the representation filed by the widow-petitioner only on the ground that her husband had not completed a minimum of 20 years of service to entitle her to get family pension. The Deputy Commissioner based his order only by considering Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code. Under Bihar Pension Rules (Jharkhand Pension Rules), different schemes were time to time framed by the State Government at the instance of Government of India. The Liberalized Pension Rules, 1950 describing the eligibility for the benefit of family pension was again reviewed by the State Government at the instance of the Government of India. Under Bihar Pension Rules (Jharkhand Pension Rules), different schemes were time to time framed by the State Government at the instance of Government of India. The Liberalized Pension Rules, 1950 describing the eligibility for the benefit of family pension was again reviewed by the State Government at the instance of the Government of India. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the Deputy Commissioner to pass fresh order after considering relevant provisions of the Pension Rules and the schemes time to time framed by the Central Government and the State Government. 7. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra to pass fresh order on the representation of the petitioner after taking into consideration relevant provisions of the Bihar Service Code, the Pension Rules and the schemes time to time framed there under. Such order must be passed within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.