- (1.) The husband of the petitioner, who was an Assistant Teacher of Tapna Chaurbhuj Junior High School, died in harness on 17th November, 2002. Earlier there was some dispute with regard to certain period of his service as admittedly, the petitioner's husband did not attend the school during the period from 21st March, 1979 to 31st March, 1984. As a result of such dispute, the terminal benefits of the petitioner's husband could not be disbursed. Under such circumstances the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 11821(W) of 2005 before this Hon'ble Court. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 31st August, 2005 wherein it was held that the petitioner was under duress and he was obstructed from joining the school during the period of March 21, 1979 to March 31, 1984 and as such the said period will be treated as under duress. His Lordship also held that the overdrawal or excess amount in pay during the period of his service, cannot be deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner's husband. Accordingly, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance was directed to issue revised pension payment order and to treat her husband as in service from 1979 to 1984 and not to deduct the amount of overdrawal from the pension payment order. The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance was, thus, directed not to ask the petitioner to refund the amount of overdrawal in pay with a rider that he will not adjust the overdrawal amount in pay from the retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner. The Director was further directed to issue revised pension payment order within the period of four weeks from the date of communication of His Lordship's said order. The Treasury Office was also directed to disburse the family pension in terms of the observation made in the said order within two weeks from the date of receipt of the revised pension payment order.
(2.) Admittedly, the overdrawal in pay which was deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner's husband has been refunded to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order of this Hon'ble Court. However, the rest part of the said order i.e. (i) issuance of revised pension payment order and/or (ii) the disbursement of the family pension to the petitioner have not been complied with by the respondent till date. Under such circumstance, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner practically for implementing that part of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition which still remains unimplemented.
(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the rights of the parties have already been decided by this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition. The parties to the said writ petition have accepted the order passed in the earlier writ petition. As such, they cannot now avoid implementation of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition.;