High Court Jharkhand High Court

Roushanara Begum vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 24 February, 2009

Jharkhand High Court
Roushanara Begum vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 24 February, 2009
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
                         W.P. (S) No. 670 of 2009
                                      ...
          Roushanara Begum                          ...      Petitioner
                               -V e r s u s-
          The State of Jharkhand and others ...       ...      Respondents
                                      ...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
                                      ...
          For the Petitioners         : - M/s. P.A.S.Pati & A.Haque, Advocates.
          For the Respondents         : - Mr. Rabindra Prasad, J.C. to G.P-IV.
                                              ...

2 / 24.02.2009

Prayer in this writ application is for a direction to the respondent
authorities to fix and release the family pension to the petitioner which is
due to her purportedly since July, 2001.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondent State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the
petitioner had retired as Jan Sewak from Barhait Block within the district of
Sahibganj in December, 1990. The petitioner was the first wife of her
husband Late Sheikh Imam Hossain. He had contracted a second marriage
with one Sakina Bibi and in his nomination papers, he named Sakina Bibi
as his nominee. The said Sakina Bibi had pre-deceased the petitioner’s
husband on 12.11.2000. Subsequently the petitioner’s husband had also
died on 27.07.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner being the surviving widow of
her deceased husband, had applied for fixation and payment of family
pension annexing therewith the death certificates, both of her deceased
husband as also of the second wife namely Sakina Bibi. Learned counsel
submits that inspite of repeated representations filed by the petitioner, the
last being filed on 22.01.2009, the concerned authorities of the respondents
have not bothered either to fix the family pension or payment of such
pension to her.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, submits
that the petitioner’s representation has been admittedly filed very recently
on 22.01.2009 and without giving a reasonable opportunity to the
concerned authorities of the respondent to consider her representation and
decide upon the same, the petitioner has hastily approached this Court by
filing this writ application.

5. Be that as it may, the respondent authorities shall take an appropriate
decision in accordance with law on the representation filed by the petitioner
within three months from the date of this order and shall intimate such
decision to the petitioner effectively. If the petitioner is found entitled to
claim and receive family pension in the account of her deceased husband
who was a Government servant, then the concerned authorities of the
respondents shall ensure that such payment is duly released and paid to the
petitioner within the above stipulated period.

With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
respondent State.

(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/