Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) I.A. No. 2205 of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 2205 of 2011 filed for condonation of delay in filing the present review petition stands allowed. Civil Review No. 66 of 2011
(2.) Payment of death-cum-retiral dues to the widow has been pleaded as a "liability " upon the State of Jharkhand. The learned counsel for the applicant-State of Jharkhand submits that the husband of writ petitioner namely, Indrawati Devi was posted within Patna Division in the year, 1984, when he died in harness and thus, it is the liability of the State of Bihar to pay death-cum-retiral dues to his widow.
(3.) The controversy whether the post retiral benefits which includes pension, family pension, gratuity etc. are paid to an employee in reward to his services rendered or it is given as bounty was settled long back in "Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others " (1971) 2 SCC 330 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right of a person to receive pension is akin to right to property under Article 31 (1) and by a mere executive order the State has no power to withhold the same. In "D.S.Nakara and others v. Union of India " (1983) 1 SCC 305 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 31. "From the discussion three things emerge: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socioeconomic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch....... ";