RAJPATI KUNWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE Government again prays for six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Considering the age of the old lady and it is a case of family pension I am not inclined to grant any further time to the State Counsel for filing the counter affidavit. The admitted position remains that the husband of the petitioner was a constable at Kotwali Police Station, Patna, who just after retirement on superannuation died on 20.9.62. It is also an admitted fact that at that relevant time family pension was not there available as a scheme by the State Government. In the year 1964 the scheme of family pension came in force but when a Supreme Court judgment was there that even if no scheme is there before hand and a person dies because of the scheme not coming into force then also the dependents are entitled for family pension. On the basis of that Supreme Court Judgment, the State Government has adopted by a resolution No. 1918 on 4.6.1986 that family pension should be available to the dependants whose predecessor died before 1964 also. On the basis of that resolution the petitioner had made application in triplicate form as required by the State Government in the year 1992 itself and in her petition she had stated that all her sons had become major and only she is entitled for family pension but in that petition being a rural woman she had mentioned her iast son 'sage as 25 years and according to the State Government the same had created confusion in the mind of the respondent authorities that the petitioner might have contacted the second marriage but it was in clear terms the petitioner had stated that she had never remarried and question of re -marriage does not arise also considering her age. Afterwards she had filed an affidavit giving the correct age of her sons which is contained in Annexure 7 and 7/A and that the same has also been made available to the respondent authorities. In such a position I do not find that the respondents can have any grievance or impediment in grant of family pension to the petitioner who being an uneducated and illiterate rural woman had filed the first petition stating the ages of her sons. Definitely the same had been drafted by somebody else. In that course there might have been some mistake and such mistake must have be cured by the petitioner by swearing an affidavit as contained in Annexure -7 and that too in the year 1998 but still then the State authorities are not granting the family pension in favour of the petitioner and as per her age it can be construed to be at the verge of her death. In that way this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to sanction the family pension of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the presentation of a copy of this order from the side of the petitioner before the concerned authorities and such sanction order must be sent to the Accountant General, Bihar who shall within four weeks next thereafter make authorisation for payment of the dues of family pension to the petitioner.

(2.) THE writ petition is disposed of accordingly.