M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) AT the very outset I must express my serious anguish and displeasure towards the manner in which the cases are conducted by the State Counsels, 1 am told by Mr. Pradeep Modi, learned G.P.I, that earlier the file was allotted to the then G.P.I, who did not transfer the brief to him. It is the business of the office of the Advocate General, where the ministerial staffs are deputed, to see that files are duly handed over to the State counsels. Moreover, tine outgoing State counsels are supposed to hand over the briefs to the incoming State counsels.
(2.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the District Education Officer -cum -District Superintendent of Education. Dhanbad Circle he has rejected the representation of the petitioner which was filed in pursuance of the order dated 24.1.2000 passed in CWJC No. 3674/2000 R. In the aforesaid writ application No. 3674/ 2000R the petitioner represented before this Court that her husband, after working for so many years, died in harness on 1.8.1984 but the death -cum -retiral benefits were not paid to her. The writ petition was disposed of on 24.1.2000 by passing the following order : "Heard. In this writ application the petitioner claims family pension on the ground.. inter alia, that her husband was employed as a teacher to Govt. Upper Primary School. Katras in the district of Dhanbad and died in harness on 1.8.1984. Since the petitioner has approached to this Court after 17 years, this application is fit to be rejected in limine. However, taking into consideration the fact that it is a case for family pension to a widow, the application is entertained but there is nothing to show that the petitioner ever approached the respondents -authorities before coming to this Court. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to first approach the authority particularly the District Education Officer, Dhanbad by filing a proper representation. It goes without saying that the D.E.0., Dhanbad shall consider the representation that may be filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within 30 days from the date of filing of the representation. This application is, accordingly, disposed of." In the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner the District Superintendent of Education has recorded a finding that the petitioners husband was appointed in 1973 with a specific stipulation that he had to obtain teachers training within a specified time. Since the petitioners husband did not obtain the requisite teachers training within specified time. his services were terminated in October. 1973. The respondents further stated that petitioners husband was never in service in 1984 at the time of death, in the writ petition it is slated that in 1981 petitioners husband completed teachers training which was entered in the service records. It is further stated that in the bank pass book of her husband payment of salary has been entered. From the pass book [Annexure 3] it appears that there is no entry showing payment of salary of any month after October, 1973. No chit of paper has also been filed to show that the husband of the petitioner was in service in 1984 and was getting salary.
(3.) THIS Court, in the earlier writ petition. specifically held that the petitioner approached this Court after 17 years. As noticed above, there is no prima facie evidence to suggest that the petitioners husband was in service in 1984 when he died. Had he been in service, the petitioner would have approached this Court at the earliest possible opportunity. It was only after 17/18 years the writ petition was filed for retiral benefits on the ground that her husband was in service in 1984 and died in harness. From the service excerpt filed by the respondents along with the counter affidavit it appears that there is entry of his being in service in 1973 and permission for obtaining teachers training but there is no entry in the service records whether he obtained teachers training and/or after obtaining training tie joined service any day before 1984. Taking all these facts into consideration I do not find any merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed.;