M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Jai Prakash Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and with their consent this writ application is disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) THE only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension after the death of her husband who retired as an Assistant Teacher in 1982. The petitioner 'shusband was an Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Tamar, Ranchi and was superannuated w.e.f. 28.9.1982. The petitioner 'scase is that the provisional pension of her deceased husband was sanctioned but it was never finalized in his lifetime and he ultimately died on 22.12.2002. It is stated by the petitioner that her husband has not even received the provisional pension. The petitioner was told that she will not be entitled to family pension. Mr. Jai Prakash learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drawn my attention to Annexure -1 to the writ application and submitted that the provisional pension was sanctioned immediately after the retirement of the petitioner 'shusband which is evident from the said pension payment order (Annexure -1). According to the learned counsel the petitioner is therefore entitled to family pension.
(3.) MR . S. Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General on the other hand submitted that in view of the circular dated 29.11.1978 the petitioner 'shusband since retired after attaining the age of 62 years was entitled to triple benefit scheme. Learned counsel in this connection relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court dated 5.3.2001 in the case of State of Bihar vs. Arya Devi, (LPA No. 439 of 2000).;