ORDER The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar/Dafadar on 13.02.1970 and he died on 12.06.1992. However, the pensionary benefit/family pension to the petitioner was not granted and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.3527 of 2010 seeking grant of family pension as well as appointment for her younger son on compassionate ground. By order dated 15.06.2011, a direction was issued to the respondents to pass appropriate order on the petitioner's claim for family pension. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 15.06.2011, family pension to the petitioner has been granted by the order dated 28.01.2012. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which, the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest has been sought to be denied by the respondents by taking a stand that, since the petitioner did not submit documents, her claim for grant of family pension was not decided. Paragraph nos.16 and 21 of the counter-affidavit are extracted below:- 16. “That in reply to para15 of the writ petition it is stated and submitted that it is not correct and hereby denied by the answering respondents because delay occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and therefore petitioner is not entitled for interest. 21. That it appears that the said service book has been lost while transferring the records from Giridih District to Bokaro District. Circle Officer Nawadih has been directed to recreate the service book of the petitioner's husband by collecting the records available at Giridih District as well as Bokaro District, but the above process may take some times as records are more than 30 to 35 years old. Meanwhile as per the minimum pension scheme of the State Government a pension of Rs.1275/per month has been fixed, by the Circle Officer, Nawadih.” 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. From the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner died on 12.06.1992 in harness. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased-employee namely, Late Mohan Mahli, is not disputed by the respondents. From the counter-affidavit it is clear that, the only plea taken by the respondents is that, the family pension of the petitioner could not be finalised due to negligence of the petitioner in submitting the documents. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased-employee namely, Late Mohan Mahli, is not disputed by the respondents. From the counter-affidavit it is clear that, the only plea taken by the respondents is that, the family pension of the petitioner could not be finalised due to negligence of the petitioner in submitting the documents. I do not find any statement made in the counter-affidavit, whether any intimation was given to the petitioner for submitting requisite documents. Since, the petitioner is the wife of the deceased-employee, it was for the respondents to take necessary steps in the matter and give intimation to the petitioner. It is the statutory duty of the respondents to finalise and pay the family pension to the petitioner however, in the present case for long 20 years, the respondents did not pay family pension to the petitioner and the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in W.P.(S) No.3527 of 2010. 5. In “S.K. Mastan Bee vs. GM, South Central Rly. & another.”, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 184 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 6. “We notice that the appellant’s husband was working as a Gangman who died while in service. It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at that time did not know of her legal right and had no access to any information as to her right to family pension and to enforce her such right. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husband’s employer viz. the Railways, in this case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The very denial of her right to family pension as held by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is an erroneous decision on the part of the Railways and in fact amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution. The factum of the appellant’s lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is not disputed by the Railways. The factum of the appellant’s lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is not disputed by the Railways. The question then arises on facts and circumstances of this case, was the Appellate Bench justified in restricting the past arrears of pension to a period much subsequent to the death of the appellant’s husband on which date she had legally become entitled to the grant of pension? In this case as noticed by us hereinabove, the learned Single Judge had rejected the contention of delay put forth by the Railways and taking note of the appellant’s right to pension and the denial of the same by the Railways illegally considered it appropriate to grant the pension with retrospective effect from the date on which it became due to her. The Division Bench also while agreeing with the learned Single Judge observed that the delay in approaching the Railways by the appellant for the grant of family pension was not fatal, in spite of the same it restricted the payment of family pension from a date on which the appellant issued a legal notice to the Railways i.e. on 141992. We think on the facts of this case inasmuch as it was an obligation of the Railways to have computed the family pension and offered the same to the widow of its employee as soon as it became due to her and also in view of the fact that her husband was only a Gangman in the Railways who might not have left behind sufficient resources for the appellant to agitate her rights and also in view of the fact that the appellant is an illiterate, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was justified in granting the relief to the appellant from the date from which it became due to her, that is the date of the death of her husband. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench fell in error in restricting that period to a date subsequent to 1.4.1992.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submits that only after a direction was passed by this Court, the family pension to the petitioner was granted. I find that this Court directed the respondents to take a decision in the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submits that only after a direction was passed by this Court, the family pension to the petitioner was granted. I find that this Court directed the respondents to take a decision in the matter. After she approached the Court in the year, 2010 pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, family pension to the petitioner was granted. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for family pension, is now recognized by the respondents themselves. 7. I am of the view that a widow, who has lost her husband was not granted family pension for long 20 years and due to the negligent approach of the respondent-authority, she had to approach this Court. No material has been produced to justify the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. Merely attributing negligence on the part of the petitioner is not sufficient to deny family pension. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I hereby direct Respondent no.3 (The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro) to take necessary decision in consultation with the Secretary, Finance, in the matter for granting a lumpsum compensation to the petitioner on account of interest on the family pension claimed by the petitioner. Let such a decision be taken within a period of eight weeks and necessary affidavit be filed before this Court within next two weeks thereafter. 9. Call the matter after ten weeks.