JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the office order, as contained in Memo No. 1259 dated 27.5.2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the claim of the petitioner for family pension and other pensionary benefits has been illegally rejected by the respondent No. 2. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that husband of the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in Lower Primary School, Kodag, Latehar on 27.2.1962 and he joined there on 6.3.1962 and service book was also opened. For training the husband of the petitioner was deputed at Teacher's Training School, Rehla and after completion of training again he joined there. Further contention of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the order dated 11.1.1968, the husband of the petitioner was transferred in L.P School, Baidakala and he joined there on 25.1.1968 and at the relevant time his pay scale was fixed at Rs. 230-340/-. At the age of 31 years her husband died in harness i.e on 13.7.1972. After death of the husband of the petitioner, she did not get any death-cum-retiral benefits, although the service book of her husband was verified and thereafter certificate was made by the BEO Patan on 9.7.1997 that the petitioner is entitled to get family pension. The grievance of the petitioner in respect of the above fact that she made a representation on 8.8.1997 to the respondent No. 2, which was forwarded by the concerned Headmaster of the school and also by BEO on Patan on 10.7.1997, but, there is no response from the side of the respondent No. 2. Last of all, the petitioner chose to file writ petition being W.P(S) No. 4566 of 2005, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.9.2005 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), wherein the learned Single Judge has opined that the said writ petition is at belted stage and it cannot be entertained after 33 years from the date of death of the deceased. The learned Single Judge has also opined that this order will not debar the petitioner from approaching the concerned authorities. The learned Single Judge has also opined that this order will not debar the petitioner from approaching the concerned authorities. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 29.9.2005, the petitioner preferred L.P.A No. 685 of 2006 which was allowed by an order dated 15.2.2006 and the case was remitted back with direction to the concerned respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of family pension and other retiral benefits and they will pay the admitted dues along with 5% interest within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On failure to pay the admitted dues within the aforesaid period, the respondent will be liable to pay additional interest @12% on the dues from January, 2005 i.e. the year the writ petition was preferred. The learned Division Bench has also observed in the said order that if any adverse decision is taken by one or other authorities, they will communicate the grounds to the appellant. 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the District Superintendent of Education, Palamau passed an order vide memo No. 1259 dated 27.5.2006 (Annexure-5) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension benefits of Late Damodar Tewari on the ground that such benefit was introduced w.e.f 1.4.1976, whereas, husband of the petitioner died in the year 1972. It is also mentioned in the order that as per letter No. 1069 dated 23.6.1977, the State Primary School Teacher, who retires on 1.4.1976 or after 1.4.1976, have been granted pensionary benefit as per the State Government employees. Further, that by the Memo No. 2643 dated 15.10.2003 of the Director Primary Education it has been directed that those persons, who retired or died prior to 1.4.1976, are not entitled to get pension and family pension. Therefore, the petitioner's application was rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred about the old age of the petitioner and that the family pension is denied due to misinterpretation of letter No. 1069 of 23.6.1977 and that the husband of the petitioner had put in more that 10 years service and denial would be against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred about the old age of the petitioner and that the family pension is denied due to misinterpretation of letter No. 1069 of 23.6.1977 and that the husband of the petitioner had put in more that 10 years service and denial would be against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the State has relied upon the decision in the case of the State of Bihar and Ors v. Arya Devi and Ors reported in 2001 (2) PLJR 212 and submitted that issue with regard to family pension involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered with the aforesaid decision. He has also stated that the husband of the petitioner, who died on 13.7.1972 and as per the memo No. 1069 dated 23.6.1977 issued by the State of Bihar, the teacher, who retired after 1.4.1976 is only entitled for pensionary benefit. He has also pointed out that the memo No. 2643 dated 15.10.2003 in which it has been mentioned that the respondent has considered the matter on the basis of direction issued by the Director, Primary Education that those teachers, who have either retired or retired prior to 1.4.1976, will not be entitled to family pension. 7 Having gone through the case records and also looking to the facts of the case, it appears that the issue with regard to family pension involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered with the aforesaid decision delivered by the Division Bench in the State of Bihar and Ors v. Arya Devi and Ors reported in 2001 (2) PLJR 212 wherein it has been held in Paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 as follows :- "10. From the facts discussed above, in substance the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-State of Bihar is that the judgments under appeal are against law and the judgments in the case of Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (supra) and in the case of Lalita Devi v. State of Bihar (supra), which have been followed by the judgments under appeal must be held to be incorrect because in the aforesaid judgments the Court failed to appreciate that benefit of Family Pension was not available to teachers of Non-Government elementary schools prior to take over of such schools by the Act enacted in the year 1976. In this regard it would, therefore, be appropriate to consider the provision of section 4(2) of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides the consequences of taking over. Sub-Section (2) of section 4 provides as follows: "Every Officer, teacher or other employee holding any office or post in the school taken over by the State Government shall be deemed to have been transferred to and become an officer, teacher or employee of the State Government with such designation as the State Government may determine and shall hold office by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and on the terms and conditions of service as he would have held before the taking over the said school and shall continue to do so unless and until such tenure remuneration, terms and conditions of service are duly altered by the State Government" .......................... "13. Having considered all the relevant facts, the earlier judgments and the provisions of the Act and after taking into account the submissions of rival parties, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants in these appeals and is, therefore, left with no option but to differ with the views expressed by the learned single Judge in the cases of Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (supra) and Lalita Devi v. State of Bihar (supra), and held that those judgments do not lay down the correct law. There is no material on record or any law to hold that the teachers of Non-Government elementary schools were entitled to the benefits of Family Pension under the liberalised scheme of 1964 as contained in Bihar Pension Rules which is applicable only to employees of State Government. After take over of the schools under the provisions of the Act, such teachers, by virtue of section 4(2) of the Act continued to be governed by their earlier service conditions and, therefore, could not have claimed to have become employees of State Government in respect of other service conditions until their conditions of service were altered by the State Government in view of instruction of 1976 providing for application of Bihar Pension Rules only to those teachers who retired on or after 1.4.1976 and also providing that those teachers who retired or died earlier shall be entitled to the benefits of Triple Benefits Scheme...." "14. In the case of Lalita Devi v. State of Bihar (supra) it was erroneously presumed that besides the Triple Benefit, pensionary benefits including Family Pension benefits as provided in the Bihar Pension Rules were available to the teachers of elementary schools taken over by the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Act. This led to further provisions of the Act. This led to further error in holding that by fixing 1.4.1976 as the cut off date for application of pensionary benefits, the State had changed the conditions of service to the detriment of teachers of concerned schools. On the basis of aforesaid discussions it has to be held that such teachers and employees of elementary schools taken over under the Act who retired or died prior to 31st March, 1976 shall be entitled only to the benefit under the Triple Benefit Scheme and only those who retired after 31st March, 1976 shall be governed by the Bihar Pension Rules including provisions for Family Pension. The instruction or decision of the State Government dated 7th June, 1976, though not a statutory Rule is valid and the cut off date fixed thereunder suffers from no arbitrariness..." 8. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and having gone through the records of the case available on record and also having gone through the decision in the case of State of Bihar and Ors v. Arya Devi and Ors (Supra) cited by the learned counsel for the State, it appears that such teachers and employees of elementary schools taken over under the Act, who retired or died prior to 31st March, 1976, shall be entitled only to the benefit under the Triple Benefit Scheme and only those who retired after 31st March, 1976 shall be governed by the Bihar Pension Rules including provisions for Family Pension. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, if any benefits may accrued to the petitioner under the previous triple benefit scheme that may be considered by the authority concerned.