- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner in the present writ application is challenging the reasoned order at Annexure-4 contained in memo No. 782 dated 27.4.2009 where under her claim for family pension has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the present case are as follows:- The petitioner claims herself to be the second wife of late Ragho Singh, a constable in the erstwhile government of Bihar, who was discharged from his service on 31.10.1967 itself. The said person died in the year 1999 and thereafter, in the year 2004 the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 104 of 2005 claiming death cum retirement benefits, family pension and other legal dues in favour of her deceased husband. She had referred to a judgment reported in 2002 (1) JLJR 703 to claim that she was still entitled for family pension. In such circumstance, the petitioner was permitted to make a representation before the respondents who were directed to consider the case sympathetically and pay the admissible dues within a period of 4 weeks. The petitioner, thereafter, pursued contempt also which was however dismissed as the reasoned order had been passed in the meantime. In the reasoned order which is at Annexure-4, the Deputy Inspector General of Police cum Principal, Police Training College, Hazaribag has considered the claim of the petitioner and found that there are no documents available in the said institution apart from the order of the dismissal to verify the correctness of the claim of the petitioner. He also found that the petitioner, after 38 years of such discharge and 6 years after the death of the said employee had approached the respondents for consideration of her case. He also took into account the Rule 47 of the Bihar Pension Rules which came in the way of considering such claim. In the wake of the aforesaid reason, representation was rejected.
(3.) The respondents have filed counter affidavit in support of their stand on 4.1.2011 itself. When the matter has been taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for time to file rejoinder to the same, after 3 years of such filing of counter affidavit, which is being refused.;