Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 171 (JHR)

Giribala Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-01

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER By the Court.- The petitioner is a widow. Her husband was employed as Tahsil Karamchari under the State Government. Her husband was appointed on 28.10.1955 and he prayed for premature retirement on health ground by making an application dated 12.12.1968 after completion of more than thirteen years of service. Petitioners husband who was seriously in died on 27.8.1999. 2. The petitioner thereafter, submitted an application for grant of family pension. It appears that though, internal departmental letters were written and even the Accountant General. Jharkhand also wrote letter to Circle Officer, Tamar, however no action was taken by the respondents for grant of family pension etc, to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition being W.P.S. No. 2442 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31.01.2005 with a direction to respondent No. 5 to ensure that the amount of the G.P.F, along with statutory interest is paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner was permitted to produce medical certificate, if any, already issued to her husband within a period of two months and' respondents were directed to pass order on her claim in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of such claim. 3. The petitioner made representation and by order dated 29.09.2005 the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner thus, has preferred the present writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 29.09.2005. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which a stand has been taken that as the husband of the petitioner had resigned, the petitioner can not be granted family pension. It has further been stated that the application dated 12.12.1968 written by husband of the petitioner was never received by the respondents. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 86 and Rule 145 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, the minimum qualifying period of service for grant of pension is 10 years and the petitioner's husband has admittedly, served for more than thirteen years and therefore the petitioner is entitled for grant of family pension etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 86 and Rule 145 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, the minimum qualifying period of service for grant of pension is 10 years and the petitioner's husband has admittedly, served for more than thirteen years and therefore the petitioner is entitled for grant of family pension etc. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that since the husband of the petitioner has resigned from the service and he did not make any representation though he died on 27.08.1999 the petitioner can not be granted family pension. 6. I find that the stand of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner had resigned from service is contrary to the contents of application dated 12.12.1968. It is clearly. stated in application dated 12.12.1968 that due to physical infirmities the petitioner's husband would not be able to perform his duties arid therefore he had sought permission for premature retirement. 7. The medical certificate produced by the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents.' Further during the proceeding of W.P. (8) No. 2442 of 2003 the respondents had not raised the plea that application dated 12.12.1968 was not received by them. Vide order dated 31.01.2005 a positive direction was given to the respondents. The impugned order dated 29.09.2005 proceeds on the basis that the husband of the petitioner had resigned from service and therefore, under the Pension Rules the petitioner can not be granted family pension. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further, submits that in view of Rules 116 to 128 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the husband of the petitioner was required to appear before a Medical Board before invalid pension was sanctioned to him. However, since this procedure was not followed now after a lapse of so many years and when the husband of the petitioner has died the claim of the petitioner can not be allowed. 9. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner has served for more than thirteen years. The minimum qualifying period for grant of pension is 10 years under the Pension Rules. When the husband of the petitioner submitted his application dated 12.12.1968 it was open to the respondents to reject such application. 9. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner has served for more than thirteen years. The minimum qualifying period for grant of pension is 10 years under the Pension Rules. When the husband of the petitioner submitted his application dated 12.12.1968 it was open to the respondents to reject such application. It was also incumbent upon the respondents to get the husband of the petitioner examined by a Medical Board constituted in terms of Rule 116 r/w Rule 128 of the Bihar Pension Rules for ascertaining the medical condition of the husband of the petitioner. No such Medical Board was constituted by the respondents and the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner have not been disputed by the respondents. 10. I find that in an identical case a similarly situated person namely Basant Kumar Banerjee has been granted similar benefits by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1012 of 2007. In the said case Basant Kumar Banerjee was appointed on 07.01.1957 and after rendering service for a period of eleven years twenty six days he asked for premature retirement and claimed payment pf invalid pension. As he was not granted pensionery benefits he moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1551 of 2001 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his case. However, as his claim was rejected, he moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1012 of 2007 which was allowed by order dated 02.02.2009. In the said case, this Court has found as under; "Having found that the application had been filed for invalid pension. It was incumbent upon the respondents to get Medical Board constituted in terms of Rule 116 r/w Rule 128 of the Bihar Pension Rules for examination of the medial condition of the petitioner but that never seems to have been constituted and hence on account of non-examination by the Board the petitioner now can not be denied the benefit of invalid pension once he has been found to have completed more than eleven years of the service. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.07.2006 as contained in Annexure-7 is hereby quashed. Consequently, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi respondent No. 3 is directed to take decision in the matter of payment of invalid pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the result, this writ application is allowed." 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.07.2006 as contained in Annexure-7 is hereby quashed. Consequently, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi respondent No. 3 is directed to take decision in the matter of payment of invalid pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the result, this writ application is allowed." 11. In view of the aforesaid facts particularly in view of the fact that the husband of the petitioner had sought permission for premature retirement and the fact that medical certificates submitted by the petitioner have not been doubted by the respondents. I find that impugned order dated 29.09.2005 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.