- (1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant on 01.08.1984 and he died in harness on 08.10.2004. The family pension and other retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner, the wife of the deceased employee and therefore, she moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1856 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 27.04.2005, directing the respondents to release the death-cum-retiral benefits with interest. The order was challenged by the State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 527 of 2005 which was dismissed by order dated 13.12.2005. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the State of Jharkhand also came to be dismissed by order dated 20.05.2009. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: However, on consideration of the records, we find that late Birendra Prasad, the deceased was put under suspension on 26.09.1998 on the order of the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, and by another order dated 16.06.2000, his suspension was revoked. Thereafter, he died on 08.10.2004 in harness while working as Assistant in the Secretariat, Dept of Art, Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs, Jharkhand. That being the position and since the learned counsel for the respondent is unable to show us any order passed by the competent authority issuing any charge-sheet against the said deceased, there could be no recovery of any amount from the retiral benefits of the deceased Birendra Prasad. There is no record to show that any departmental proceeding was drawn up by the department against the deceased before his death. We find no error in the judgments passed by the Division Bench and by the learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. We are informed that during the pendency of the present appeal the respondent was paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) which shall now be adjusted against the dues payable to the respondent. All the service benefits and other dues which are required to be paid to the respondent here shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(2.) The petitioner approached the authorities with a copy of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the claim for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme was considered by the authorities on 18.06.2009. By letter dated 18.06.2009, the grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme was ordered to be extended to the deceased employee. However, by order dated 31.07.2009, the said order was recalled, withdrawing the grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme. In the meantime, by orders both dated 16.07.2005, it was ordered that the deceased employee would be entitled for subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension and the benefit of the ACP Scheme would not be granted to him. Challenging these orders, the petitioner-wife of the deceased employee has approached this Court again.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly, the departmental proceeding initiated against the deceased husband of the petitioner was not concluded and therefore, the show-cause notice issued to the husband of the petitioner on 23.09.1998 remained an allegation only and since, the allegations were never proved against the husband of the petitioner, the impugned orders could not have been passed by the respondent-authority. The learned counsel has further submitted that, the impugned orders both dated 16.07.2005 and 31.07.2009 have been passed ignoring the orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;