Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1122 (JHR)

Nawjeet Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-13

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Kaushalendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Samta, JC to Sr. SC-II for the respondent State. 2. The petitioner Smt. Munni Marandi whose husband was employed under the respondent State Government, had filed the present writ application, praying for a direction upon the respondents to release the arrears of the Dearness Reliefs payable from 23.7.1995 together with the family pension paid to her. 3. During the pendency of this writ application, the lady having died, the name of her son Nawjeet Hansda, has been substituted in her place. 4. The case of the petitioner is that her husband namely, late Gondrap Hansda was employed as Orderly (Peon) under the respondent at Ranchi. He died on 22.7.1995. Though, family pension was fixed and paid to her, but the respondents did not calculate the Dearness Relief which was legally payable along with the family pension. 5. The further claim of the petitioner was that her husband was entitled to the benefits of first time bound promotion after completing 10 years of service on 1.4.1988, but the same was not given to him. She has claimed the monetary benefits of the first time bound promotion which was legitimately due to her deceased husband. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner’s claim for payment of Dearness reliefs along with the family pension, is misconceived and is not provided under the Pension Rules, applicable to the Government Employees. It has been explained in the counter-affidavit that the employee late Gondrap Hansda was appointed as an Orderly (Peon) in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Ranchi on 1.4.1978. He was posted at Dumka Forest Division on 24.10.1983 and later, he died on 22.7.1995 in harness. After his death, his widow namely, the petitioner Munni Marandi was paid the following retiral benefits which was payable in the account of her deceased husband: i. Family Pension at the rate of Rs. 575/-per month with effect from 28.7.1995 ii. A sum of Rs. 16,560/-towards death-cum-retirement Gratuity iii. A sum of Rs. 28,658/-towards GPF Final Payment iv. A sum of Rs. 50,000/-towards Group Insurance v. Payment towards encashment of unutilized leave for 190 days. 7. 575/-per month with effect from 28.7.1995 ii. A sum of Rs. 16,560/-towards death-cum-retirement Gratuity iii. A sum of Rs. 28,658/-towards GPF Final Payment iv. A sum of Rs. 50,000/-towards Group Insurance v. Payment towards encashment of unutilized leave for 190 days. 7. Furthermore, the deceased employee was allowed the first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1988 vide office order dated 13.11.1992 and accordingly, his pay scale was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 800-15-1010-20-1150 Junior Scale Grade. Besides the first time bound promotion, he was also granted five increments commencing from 1.4.1989 till 1.4.1993 and thereafter, further increments from 1.4.1994 to 7.7.1995, was also granted to him. 8. As regards the petitioner’s claim for gratuity relief, it is explained that the petitioner herself was appointed as an Artist in Public Relation Department, at Dumka under the State Government. As per the Bihar Pension Rules, 1964, the Dearness amount is not paid together with the family pension in case where the surviving spouse is in Government Employment and receiving Dearness Allowance with his / her monthly pay. Reference in this context has been made to a Circular issued by the Finance Department of the State Government vide notification dated 5.9.1991 which was further clarified vide notification dated 23.8.2004. The claim of the petitioner for additional family pension, as made vide application dated 10.9.2005, was accordingly rejected on the basis of the aforesaid Government Circular. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner whose name has been substituted in place of his deceased mother and who is presently a minor, has claimed the benefits of the Dearness Reliefs together with the family pension on the basis of the Government Circular dated 23.8.2004 and the corresponding Family Pension Rules. Learned counsel explains that since both his parents have now died and since the present petitioner is still a minor, he is entitled to the family pension till he attains the age of majority at the age of 21 years and he would be entitled therefore, not only to family pension, but also to Dearness Reliefs. 11. Counsel for the respondents would explain on the other hand that the original claimant namely, the widow of the deceased employee could not possibly have claimed Dearness Reliefs in view of the Government Circular that the Pension rules did not permit such reliefs to her. 11. Counsel for the respondents would explain on the other hand that the original claimant namely, the widow of the deceased employee could not possibly have claimed Dearness Reliefs in view of the Government Circular that the Pension rules did not permit such reliefs to her. As regards the present petitioner who happens to be the son of the deceased employee, he would certainly be guided in accordance with the Pension Rules regarding payment of family pension and other benefits. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the concerned authorities of the respondents are directed to consider the case of the present petitioner, who claims to be the minor son of the deceased employee, for assessment and payment of family pension and for grant of any further relief, if permissible under the Pension Rules and to take appropriate decision on the same and communicate such decision effectively to the petitioner. If the petitioner is found entitled to any such relief, as claimed in this writ application, towards family pension and other reliefs, the respondents shall extend the same and ensure such payments to the petitioner, within one month from the date of decision taken on the petitioner’s claim. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.