Disposed

Sunita Kumari v. The Union Of India Represented Through Deputy Superintendent Central Industrial Security Force And

Jharkhand HC13 Mar 2019WPC/4250/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought family pension arrears after her father's death and remarriage. Court ordered respondent-department to process claim within sixteen weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation with respondent No.1 to decide claim on merits within 16 weeks; writ application disposed of.

What the court decided

Sunita Kumari Vs The Union Of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 4250 of 2016

----

Sunita Kumari

… Petitioner

-versus-

The Union of India represented through Deputy Superintendent, Central Industrial Security Forces, CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.

¶8

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Centralised Pension Processing Centre, Patna, P.O. and P.S. Patna, District Patna, Bihar.

¶9

Accounts Officer, Regional Pay and Account Office (CISF), Ranchi-2, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶10

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, AMY Pandra, P.O. & P.S. Pandra, District Ranchi.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

----

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. B.K. Prasad, A.C. to A.S.G.I. ----

¶15

6/ 13.03.2019 As per the petitioner, the only dispute, which remains is in respect of payment of arrears of family pension from 01.03.2002 to 31.05.2012.

¶16

2. Father of the petitioner was employed as a Water Carrier, CISF and was posted at BCCL, Dhanbad. Father of the petitioner died. Mother of this petitioner remarried. Petitioner claimed family pension after her mother remarried. As per the petitioner, the family pension was stopped by the respondents, but, thereafter, they have again started making payment and petitioner is getting pension regularly. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the family pension from 01.03.2002 to 31.05.2012 has not been paid to the petitioner. He relies on a document, which is a pension payment order. He submits that though the pension payment order shows that there are arrears of pension from 01.03.2003 to 11.05.2012, yet the same has not been paid to the petitioner. Petitioner prays for the said arrears of family pension to be disbursed in favour of the petitioner as the mother had already remarried and had received family pension before that.

¶17

3. Counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation before the Deputy Superintendent, CISF Unit BCCL, Dhanbad, the claim of the petitioner will be looked into

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

and if it is found that arrears of family pension is payable from 01.03.2003, the same will be disbursed.

¶20

4. Inspite of the order dated 16.05.2017 and 18.11.2017, counter affidavit has not been filed by the Union of India. Considering the nature of prayer and the order, which I intend to pass, it will not be proper to keep this writ application pending awaiting for counter affidavit.

¶21

5. Considering the submissions of the parties, I direct the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No.1, Deputy Superintendent, CISF Unit BCCL, Dhanbad, who will consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the arrears of pension for the period aforesaid, the same should be disbursed to the petitioner without any further delay. The entire process should be completed by the respondent within a period of 16 (sixteen) weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the end of the petitioner along with a copy of this order.

¶22

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of.

¶23

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶24

Kumar/Cp-02

Sunita Kumari v. The Union Of India Represented Through Deputy Superintendent Central Industrial Security Force And

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sunita Kumari v. The Union Of India Represented Through Deputy Superintendent Central Industrial Security Force And

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Vasumati Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushila Devi Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Dhanbir Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Department

Lalit Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Sanjiv Khawas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.