D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties. In this application, the petitioner had prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay the admitted retrial dues of the petitioner's deceased husband, along with 18% interest thereon besides the statutory interest and for further direction to the respondents to fix family pension of the petitioner.
(2.) THE husband of the petitioner was an employed under the respondent Birsa Agriculture University, Ranchi. While in service on the post of Field Officer, he died in harness on 16. 7.1997. The claim of the petitioner is that her deceased husband had a GPF Account No. 9387 as confirmed by order no 236 dated 5.5.1970 issued by the Regional Director, Agriculture Research Institute, Kanke, Ranchi, and also by the letter No. 16.5.2002 and letter dated 4.6.2002 issued by the Assistant Comptroller, Directorate of Research, Birsa Agriculture University, Ranchi (Annexure 1 series) to the rejoinder cum supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had moved this Court in WPS No. 1223 of 2002 for the same relief and by order dated 15.2.2002, this Court had directed that "the petitioner should do the needful" in view of the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner did not submit the succession certificate. The petitioner's claim that though the succession certificate was filed by her, her claim has not been denied by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ application for the same relief. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and in compliance with the order of this Court passed on 26.6.2003, the respondents deposited two cheques, one for Rs. 5,239/ - against the final contributory provident fund account and the other for Rs. 24,000/ - towards the final GLI account, payable to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband. The petitioner has disputed the amount stating that though she had received the aforesaid cheques under protest, but she is entitled to family pension on the ground that her husband was having a General Provident Fund Account No. Ag 9387, as confirmed by the respondents.
(3.) THE stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the claim of the petitioner that her husband was allotted a General Provident Fund No. 9387 is incorrect and misleading. The fact otherwise is that Account No 9387 does not belong to the husband of the petitioner. Rather, as per the certificate dated 6.5.1992 (Annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit) issued by the Director of Provident Fund, Patna, Account No. 9387 belongs to one late Budhuwa Oraon and not the husband of the petitioner. It is further stated that the husband of the petitioner was subscribing in his contributory provident fund No. 413 and as per rules under the Bihar Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1948, Contributory Provident Fund Rules apply to every non -pensionable employee of the Government. It is further explained in para 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit that as per Rule 27 of the Bihar Pension Rules 1950 adopted by the State of Jharkhand, "Pension includes Gratuity". Therefore, pensionary benefits which include pension as well as the gratuity is not admissible to the petitioner as the husband of the petitioner was a subscriber of the Contributory Provident Fund only, and not the General Provident Fund. From the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, it appears that the certificate was issued by the Director of Provident Fund, Patna, stating therein that Account No. 9387, on the basis of which the petitioner who has advanced his claim, was in fact allotted to some other person by the name of Budhwa and not the petitioner's husband. The genuineness of the certificate has not been disputed by the petitioner. It also appears that the husband of the petitioner was subscribing in his Contributory Provident Fund Account bearing No. 413. Apparently under the provisions of the Bihar Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1948 and Pension Rules, 1950 adopted by the State of Jharkhand, the husband of the petitioner was subscriber of Contributory provident fund only and the petitioner is therefore not entitled to the pensionary benefits. As stated in para 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit, since there was no earned leave in the credit of the husband of the petitioner at the time of his death, no amount was payable to him on this account.;