Allowed

Bandana Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Apr 2022WPC/864/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench directed the respondents to pay family pension and arrears to an unmarried dependent daughter of a deceased former government employee, rejecting the claim that lack of records barred the benefit since the mother received it until 2012.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay family pension from 2012 with arrears and current pension within 8 weeks; imposed Rs.50,000 cost on default.

Bandana Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P(S) No. 864 of 2019

Bandana Choudhary

… … Petitioner

--- V E R S U S ---

State of Jharkhand

¶8

Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi.

¶9

Director (Health), Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi.

¶10

The State of Bihar.

¶11

Accountant General, State of Bihar, having its office at Patna, Bihar

¶12

… … Respondents

¶13

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK

¶14

For the Petitioner Mr.	Kalyan Roy, Advocate
Mr.	Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the State Ms.	Soumya S. Pandey, AC to AAG
For the State of Bihar Mr.	Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate

¶15

08/05.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay family pension of her father from the year 2013 who retired from the post of Assistant Civil Surgeon-cum-Deputy C.M.O., Chaibasa in the year 1983.

¶17

The facts of the case is brief is that petitioner’s father Late Dr. Haripada Choudhary was posted as an Assistant Civil Surgeon – cum – Deputy C.M.O. till the year 1983 and he retired from the said post in March, 1983. From the date of retirement till his death, petitioner’s father received pension. Thereafter, petitioner’s mother Late Smt. Sujata Choudhary continued getting family pension till her death in the month of December, 2012. Petitioner being unmarried dependent daughter of deceased parent, requested the respondents authorities to disburse family pension, but till date no action has been taken by the respondents and as such, she has knocked door of this Court.

¶18

Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though petitioner’s father retired in the year 1983 from the State of Bihar and subsequently died in the year 1985, widow claimed for Family Pension and the same was paid by the State of Jharkhand. Widow

¶19

¶20

¶21

also died on 15.12.2022. Thereafter, the unmarried dependent daughter claimed for pensionary benefits but the same has been disputed on the ground that neither petitioner has submitted any document/ paper regarding family pension nor records are available with the State of Jharkhand.

¶22

Mr. Soumya S. Pandey, AC to learned AAG appears on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and submits that the matter is very old and after creation of State of Bihar, State has no document regarding petitioner’s father and as such no decision has been made on her request to provide family pension.

¶23

Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submits that the matter is very old and records are not available with them and as such they are not in a position to justify claim of the petitioner regarding grant of family pension.

¶24

From the averments made in the counter affidavit and records brought on record before this Court, it appears that petitioner’s mother was getting family pension from the State of Bihar till the year 2012. This Court fails to understand as to when documents were not provided to the State of Bihar how come mother of the petitioner was getting family pension and when she has received family pension till the year 2012, the unmarried daughter is also entitled for the same and hence it is hereby directed to State of Jharkhand to pay family pension to the petitioner from the year 2012 along with arrears as well as current pension within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within the said period, the State shall be saddled with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 is specifically directed to look into the matter and release the amount within the aforesaid period.

¶25

With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶27

Bandana Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandana Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

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

Dr Ram Nath Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Padu Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suman Kumar Ray Vs Human Resources Department

Sukhlal Prasad Singh Vs Coal India Limited Through Its C M D And Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Though Its Chairman