JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to pay all the death-cum-retiral benefits including family pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment and all other admissible dues to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum, in view of the fact that the husband of the petitioner died on 27.08.2021 after his superannuation on 31.10.2016 from the post of Clerk, Government High School, Kharsidag, Namkum, Ranchi. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the part of order contained in memo No. 2648 dated 28.10.2016 (Clause-III thereof), whereby it has been decided that the period of suspension will not be counted for the purpose of any monetary benefits. 3. The case of petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Husband of petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Government High School, Kharsidag, Namkum, Ranchi. During his service period, an FIR was lodged under Section 302/34 IPC which was registered as Namkum P.S. Case No. 57/95, in which the husband of petitioner was arrested on 07.06.1995. On his arrest, the respondents vide order dated 15.07.1995 put him under suspension. Thereafter, the husband of petitioner remained suspended for a long period of time and just three days prior to his retirement suspension order was revoked vide order dated 28.10.2016. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retied on 31.10.2016 and subsequently died on 27.08.2021. Since her husband died on 27.08.2021, the criminal case pending against him also stood dropped. Thereafter, the wife (petitioner) has approached this Court getting the entire death-cum-retiral benefits as well as full salary of the suspended period. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that petitioner in the capacity of wife of late Jai Prakash Nayak is entitled for entire death-cum-retiral benefits as well as the full salary of the period of suspension of her husband since order of suspension has already been revoked vide order dated 28.10.2016. Learned counsel submits that part of the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 (Clause-III thereof) needs to be quashed and set aside as it talks of forfeiture of salary of the period of suspension. Learned counsel submits that delay was on the part of the respondents and as such, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment. 5. Mr. Learned counsel submits that part of the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 (Clause-III thereof) needs to be quashed and set aside as it talks of forfeiture of salary of the period of suspension. Learned counsel submits that delay was on the part of the respondents and as such, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment. 5. Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State by opposing contention of learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has approached this Court after a long dely. The order was passed on 28.10.2016 and this writ petition was filed in the year 2023. At the time of passing of the impugned order, the husband of petitioner was very much alive and was also aware of the order passed against him and therefore, the petitioner-wife is precluded from challenging the same since husband had accepted the said order and never aggrieved by the same, and as such not challenged the order dated 28.10.2016. Learned counsel submits that merely because the criminal case was dropped due to death of her husband, the petitioner is not entitled for full salary of the suspension period. 6. Having heard the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for entire benefits for the following facts and reasons: (I) Vide order dated 28.10.2016, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked. (II) After revocation of suspension, the respondents neither initiated any department proceeding nor passed any punishment order against the husband of petitioner. (III) The criminal case, due to death of the petitioner, was also dropped vide order dated 24.06.2022 in Session Trail Case No. 467/1996 and as such, it can very comfortably be presumed that nothing was pending against the husband of the petitioner. (IV) Admittedly, the petitioner (widow) is entitled for family pension. Only on the ground that husband of petitioner did not challenge the order dated 28.10.2016, it cannot be said that wife cannot claim family pension. Family pension/ retiral benefits is a constitutional right and the legal heirs of the deceased employee, in the instant case wife, is entitled for receiving the same. (V) Since suspension was revoked and criminal case was also dropped taking into consideration Rule-97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, the petitioner is entitled for full salary of the said period. Family pension/ retiral benefits is a constitutional right and the legal heirs of the deceased employee, in the instant case wife, is entitled for receiving the same. (V) Since suspension was revoked and criminal case was also dropped taking into consideration Rule-97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, the petitioner is entitled for full salary of the said period. The provisions of Rule-97 of the Jharkhand Service Code reads as under: “97. (1) When a government servant who has been dismissed, removed, or suspended, reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make specific order— (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of his absence from duty, and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), is of opinion that the Government Servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.” (VI) From plain reading of the aforesaid Rules, it is evident that sub-rule (1) of Rule 97 stipulates that where a government servant is suspended, the authority competent to order the reinstatement has to consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowances for the period of absence from duty and whether or not the period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. Sub-rule (2) indicates that where the authority concludes that the government servant has been fully exonerated or suspension was “wholly unjustified”, the government servant shall be given full pay and allowances. (VII) Since the suspension has been revoked and the criminal case against the husband of petitioner has been dropped the petitioner is entitled for counting the period of suspension for the pensionary benefits. 7. From the counter-affidavit para-12 it appears that respondents had asked for pension paper only in the year 2023 and as such, delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner for not submitting the pension papers. Even from the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). 7. From the counter-affidavit para-12 it appears that respondents had asked for pension paper only in the year 2023 and as such, delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner for not submitting the pension papers. Even from the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.1176 of 2009, it appears that a direction was given to the respondents to pay entire retiral benefits within a period of six weeks but inspite of the same, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that not a single farthing has been paid to the petitioner or her husband. 8. The plea of the respondents that the doctrine of ‘No Work No Pay’ is applicable in the instant case since petitioner has not worked during the period of suspension is not acceptable to this Court inasmuch as it is not a rule of thumb, rather, it has to be considered taking into consideration Rule-97(1)(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code. In the case in hand, the respondents themselves have revoked the order of suspension vide order dated 28.10.2021 and as such, they cannot say that petitioner has not worked during the period of suspension. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions and legal propositions, the Clause-III of order contained in memo No. 2648 dated 28.10.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to release entire death-cum-retiral benefits by counting the period of suspension as continuance in service and also pay the arrears of salary of the suspended period, if not paid till date, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. It goes without saying that since delay has occurred due to laches on the part of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner is also entitled for statutory interest @ 6% p.a. from the date it has fallen due till the date of actual payment. 11. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.