Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 31 (PAT)

Muniya Devi v. State of Bihar

2024-01-08

HARISH KUMAR

body2024
Harish Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. M N Parbat, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned counsel representing the State and Mr. Ram Yash Singh, learned counsel for the Accountant General. 2. The petitioner, who is a hapless widow of late Mundrika Choudhary, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to issue an amended PPO after making correction of date of enhanced family pension of the petitioner to 31.10.2023 or 7 years from the death of her husband instead of fixing the date from 31.03.2014 or 7 years from the death of her husband, whichever is earlier, as per the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband joined the post of Constable on 23.02.1997 in Bihar Military Police and after having served more than 30 years of his unblemished service took voluntary retirement from the post of Constable while he was posted in BMP-2 at Dehri-on-Sone under the supervision of Commandant BMP-2. It is submitted that although the actual date of retirement of her husband was 30.11.2016 but on account of some personal difficulty he took voluntary retirement on 31.03.2007 just 9 years prior to the date of his superannuation. 4. The respondents No. 2 and 3 having accepted the voluntary retirement of the husband of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2007 sent the necessary documents/service book to the office of the Accountant General and accordingly PPO No. 429433 (V) dated 25.05.2007 has been issued fixing the pension @ Rs.4371/- per month with effect from 01.04.2007. The pension of the petitioner’s husband, late Mundrika Choudhary had been subsequently revised and fixed @ Rs.7373 per month vide letter dated 13.10.2010. The petitioner’s husband later on died on 09.02.2016 and thus the petitioner claimed for enhanced family pension before the concerned Department as per the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Irrespective thereof, the petitioner has been paid family pension since 10.02.2016 @ Rs.2948/- per month. After having come to know the aforesaid facts, the petitioner vide her representation dated 18.10.2020 represented before the Department as well as the Senior Account Officer (A.G., Bihar) requesting therein to make proper fixation of family pension. 5. Irrespective thereof, the petitioner has been paid family pension since 10.02.2016 @ Rs.2948/- per month. After having come to know the aforesaid facts, the petitioner vide her representation dated 18.10.2020 represented before the Department as well as the Senior Account Officer (A.G., Bihar) requesting therein to make proper fixation of family pension. 5. The Commandant, Bihar Military Police-2, Dehri-on-Sone after considering the representation of the petitioner sent a letter to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 623 dated 08.02.2021 with a recommendation to ensure the enhanced family pension till attainment of 67 years of age or till 7 years after the death of pensioner, whichever is earlier. In response to the aforesaid letter, the Senior Accounts Officer, A.G., Bihar vide its letter No. 1132 dated 10.02.2021 came out with a decision that the enhanced family pension is payable only to whom who is in service from 01.04.2007 or up till 10 years after the said person died during his service period as per the resolution No. 1206 dated 22.08.2013. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by referring to resolution No. 1206 dated 22.08.2013 as the same would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reliance upon Memo No. 1764 dated 26.09.2006 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar and with reference thereto he submits that the enhanced family pension would also be applicable in the case where the employee died during and after his superannuation till seven years from the date of death or completion of 65 years whichever is earlier. However, subsequently the age of 65 years has been enhanced to 67 years. He further submitted that so far the resolution No. 1206 dated 22.08.2013 is concerned, the same contemplates enhanced family pension for 10 years in respect to the family of the employees, who died on or after 01.04.2007 or subsequent thereto died during service. 7. It would be worth noting that during pendency of the present writ petition, the pending representation of the petitioner had been rejected in the same fashion as noted hereinabove, vide letter No. 478 dated 24.08.2023 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Bihar, Patna. The said letter has also been put to challenge by filing I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in the present case. 8. The said letter has also been put to challenge by filing I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in the present case. 8. Respective counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, as well as the Commandant, Bihar Military Police-II, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas. It is the stand of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 31.03.2007 and he died on 09.02.2016 and thus in such eventuality, the enhanced family pension shall be admissible from the date of voluntary retirement, i.e. 31.03.2007 and not from 09.02.2016. Referring to the resolution No. 1206 dated 22.08.2013 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, submission has been made that if the government servant dies while in service, enhanced family pension is admissible for 10 years from the date of death but as the husband of the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 31.03.2007, the petitioner would be entitled for enhanced family pension for 7 years from the date of voluntary retirement. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent harps on the Court that the case of the petitioner would be governed by resolution No. 1206 dated 22.08.2013, which in no uncertain terms stipulates that the enhanced family pension is payable for 10 years to only those employees who have died on or after 01.04.2007 or during their service period, but not after the retirement. 10. This Court has anxiously heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and also perused the materials available on record. Having gone through the resolution No. 1206 dated 22.08.2013, prima facie, its applicability is restricted only to those employees, who have died on or after 01.04.2007 or died during their service period and if that is so happened, in such circumstances the enhanced family pension is payable for 10 years but it would not be applicable to the employees, who died after the retirement. Undoubtedly, the voluntary retirement of the petitioner’s husband was approved with effect from 31.03.2007, which is the date of his retirement and thus resolution No. 1206 dated 22.08.2013 would certainly be not applicable in the case of the husband of the petitioner. 11. Undoubtedly, the voluntary retirement of the petitioner’s husband was approved with effect from 31.03.2007, which is the date of his retirement and thus resolution No. 1206 dated 22.08.2013 would certainly be not applicable in the case of the husband of the petitioner. 11. Now coming to the resolution issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar contained in Memo No. 1764 dated 26.09.2006 is concerned, the same is quoted herein-below: – ^^okf"kZd nj ij ikfjokfjd isa'ku ÁkfIr dh lhek vofèk dk foLrkj ¼fcgkj ljdkj] foRr foHkkx] Kkikad foŒ ¼27½ isaŒdksŒ&82@06@1764@osŒ] fnukad 26-09-2006 dh Áfrfyfi½ fo"k;% okf"kZd nj ij ikfjokfjd isa'ku ÁkfIr dh lhek vofèk foLrkfjr fd;s tkus ds lacaèk esaA 1- foRr foHkkx ds i=kad 9251] fnukad 05-12-2006 ds rgr~ ;g Ákoèkku gS fd ;fn lsok ds nkSjku ljdkj dehZ dh e`R;q gks tkrh gS] rks muds vkfJrksa dks e`R;q dh frfFk ls lkr o"kksZ rd ;k dehZ dh okD; lsokfuo`fÙk dh vk;q ;fn og thfor gksrk rd] tks Hkh igys gks] okf"kZd nj ij ikfjokfjd isa'ku vuqekU; gksxkA ladYi la[;k 6796] fnukad 15-07-1975 }kjk mDr Ákoèkku dks ljyhÑr dj lsokfuo`fÙk ds ckn e`r dfeZ;ksa dks Hkh 'kkfey djrs gq, ;g Ákoèkku fd;k x;k gS fd lsokdky@lsokfuo`fÙk ds ckn e`R;q dh frfFk ls lkr o"kZ ;k 65 o"kZ dh vk;q tks igys gks] rd fd;k tk,xkA 2- dsUæ ljdkj }kjk lsokfuo`fÙk dh vk;q 58 o"kZ ls cढ+dj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds mijkUr cढ+h gqbZ nj ij ikfjokfjd isa'ku Hkqxrku dh vofèk 65 o"kZ ls cढ+kdj 67 o"kZ] tks Hkh igys gks] rd dk Ákoèkku fd;k x;k gSA 3- fcgkj ljdkj }kjk lsokfuo`fÙk dh frfFk 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds ckn Hkkjr ljdkj ds mDr Ákoèkkuksa ds vkyksd esa lE;d~ :i ls fopkjksijkUr foRr foHkkx ds Kkikad 9251] fnukad 05-12-1966 esa fufgr Ákoèkkuksa ds vuqlkj okf"kZd nj ij ikfjokfjd isa'ku fn;s tkus gsrq ladYi la[;k&6796] fnukad 15-07-1975 dh dafMdk&2 dh mi&dafMdk ^,* ,oa ^ch* dk fuEu :i esa la'kksfèkr fd;k tkrk gS%& ^^lsok dky esa@lsokfuo`fÙk ds ckn dehZ dh e`R;q gksus ij lkr o"kksZ rd ;k e`rd ds 67 o"kZ dh vk;q ÁkIr djus rd tks Hkh de gks] cढ+s nj ij ikfjokfjd isa'ku ns; gksxkA lsokfuo`fÙk ds ckn e`R;q gksus dh fLFkfr esa cढ+h gqbZ nj ij ikfjokfjd isa'ku fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa e`r ljdkjh lsod dks vuqekU; isa'ku ls vf/kd ugha gksxkA** ,rn~ lacaèkh iwoZ esa lHkh vkns'kksa dks bl gn rd la'kksfèkr le>k tk,A** 12. The resolution as noted hereinabove, while amending sub clause A and B of Clause 2 of resolution No. 1764 dated 26.09.2006, clearly stipulated that the employee(s) died during service period or after his superannuation shall be entitled to get enhanced family pension till 7 years of the eventuality of death or upto 67 years of age of deceased employee. However, in no case the enhanced family pension shall be excess to the basic pension of the dead employee. 13. Having considered the aforesaid resolution, this Court has no hesitation to hold that in the case in hand, the husband of the petitioner retired w.e.f. 31.03.2007 and died in the year 2016, thus in such an eventuality the resolution No. 1764 dated 26.09.2006 would only be applicable, hence, the petitioner would be entitled for enhanced family pension upto 7 years of the death of her husband or upto 67 years of age of the deceased employee, whichever is earlier. 14. In view thereof, the impugned order contained in letter No. 1132 dated 10.02.2021 as also the letter No. 478 dated 24.08.2023 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Bihar, Patna rejecting the claim of the petitioner for enhanced family pension stands quashed. 15. Accordingly, the respondent Accountant General, Bihar is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for enhanced family pension in light of the resolution of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar contained in Memo No. 1764 dated 26.09.2006 and ensure consequential benefits preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. The present writ petition stands allowed.