ORDER : The applicant in Civil Review No. 26 of 2013 is the original writ petitioner who had preferred Contempt Case (C) No. 1158 of 2012. He is the husband of the deceased employee namely, Asha Kiran. The applicant in Civil Review No. 27 of 2013 is the daughter of the applicant Rabindra Nath. 2. At the outset, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel, appearing in both the civil review petitions, submits that the applicants are in substance seeking clarification of order dated 14.03.2013 passed in Contempt Case (C) No. 1158 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C) No. 1166 of 2012. 3. The learned State counsel opposing the review petitions submits that the Director has already taken a decision, and if the applicants are aggrieved by the said decision, they may challenge the said order, but in any case review of the order passed in contempt cases, is not the remedy. 4. The materials brought on record reveal that the deceased employee namely, Asha Kiran joined the post of District Public Relation Officer on 07.03.1986. She was married to the writ petitioner namely, Rabindra Nath and out of wedlock their daughter Shivangi Priya and son Animesh Priyadarshan were born. Asha Kiran died in an accident on 06.06.2004 and her son Animesh Priyadarshan also died on 21.01.2009. When the death-cum retiral benefits were not released, the applicant Rabindra Nath represented before the department, which informed him vide letter dated 13.11.2004 that mother of late Asha Kiran has staked a claim over the death-cum retiral benefits of her deceased daughter. Constrained, Rabindra Nath approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3987 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2011 directing the Director, Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of Jharkhand to dispose of representation of Rabindra Nath within four weeks. It appears that the representation of the applicant writ petitioner was not decided for a long time, and constrained, he along with his surviving minor daughter filed contempt cases, which were disposed of on 14.03.2013. 5. Order passed in the contempt cases discloses that order dated 14.03.2013 was passed in absence of the counsel for the applicants and on the statement of the learned counsel for the State that a decision has already been taken vide Annexure1 to the application i.e., order dated 10.09.2012, the contempt petitions were disposed of. 5. Order passed in the contempt cases discloses that order dated 14.03.2013 was passed in absence of the counsel for the applicants and on the statement of the learned counsel for the State that a decision has already been taken vide Annexure1 to the application i.e., order dated 10.09.2012, the contempt petitions were disposed of. The order passed by the Director reflects that whoever produces succession certificate would be entitled for death-cum retiral benefits of late Asha Kiran. 6. It is not in dispute that only the mother of late Asha Kiran had staked her claim over the death-cum retiral benefits however, she also died on 15.03.2011. Factum of death of mother-in-law of the applicant Rabindra Nath is noticed in order dated 10.08.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3987 of 2011. Order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Director indicates that the claim raised by the applicant Rabindra Nath along with daughter Shivangi Priya has been taken by the Director, as if there is a dispute between the two and therefore, a succession certificate would be required. Whereas, both the applicants had filed contempt petitions and the contempt petition filed on behalf of Shivani Priya was through her father. The instant civil review petition filed by Shivangi Priya is again through her father Rabindra Nath. The aforesaid petitions are supported by affidavits. 7. The constitutional obligation of the State is to pay postretiral benefits in terms of the extant rules/circular. What has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” (1971) 2 SCC 330 by which the debate on the nature of pension; whether it is purely gratuitous or a reward for past services was finally settled, has been ignored by the Director, Department of Information and Public Relation. 8. The plea that order passed by the Director should be challenged by the applicants, least to say, is a technical plea, which is liable to be rejected in the facts of the instant case. Direction of the Writ Court was to pass order on representation of the writ petitioner. By that time, the mother-in-law of the writ petitioner had already died and there is no dispute between the father and daughter. The observation of the Court in contempt cases is merely reproduction of the order passed by the Director. In “Lily Thomas & Ors. Vs. By that time, the mother-in-law of the writ petitioner had already died and there is no dispute between the father and daughter. The observation of the Court in contempt cases is merely reproduction of the order passed by the Director. In “Lily Thomas & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.” (2000) 6 SCC 224 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that; “........ it cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of Justice. Law has to bend before justice.........” 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that, in absence of any dispute between the father and daughter to the claim for death-cum retiral benefits of late Asha Kiran, order passed in Contempt Case (C) No. 1158 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C) No. 1166 of 2012 needs to be clarified to the extent that the applicants are not required to produce a succession certificate. The death-cum retiral benefits of late Asha Kiran would be paid on production of an affidavit duly signed and verified by both the applicants. It needs no reiteration that the death-cum retiral benefits must be released at the earliest. 10. The instant civil review petitions stand allowed, in the aforesaid terms.