Petitioner-widow filed a writ petition seeking death-cum-pension benefits for her Home Guard husband who died in service injuries after his superannuation date. The Court noted factual disputes regarding his post-retirement employment and observed that without concrete proof of valid re-engagement, it could not direct payment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17467 of 2016
===========================================================
Batasi Devi, Wife of Late Puran Yadav, Resident of Village- Sananpatti, P.OAuraha, P.S.- Laukahi, District- Madhubani.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Nasrul Huda Khan, SC-1 Ms. Babita Kumari, AC to SC-1
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 27-07-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
reliefs:
“(a) That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or direction to the respondent authorities to grant death-cumpost retiral benefit of the petitioner’s husband to the petitioner with appropriate order or direction.
(b) that an appropriate order or direction may be issued to the Respondent authorities to grant family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 03.01.2015.
(c) Than an appropriate order or direction may be issued to the Respondent authorities to grant any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner entitled.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.17467 of 2016 dt.27-07-2018
2/3
Patna High Court CWJC No.17467 of 2016 dt.27-07-2018
3/3
coming to a final view as there is total dispute on facts. The only fact which is undisputed is that the husband of the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 27.09.2013 and thereafter was killed on 03.01.2015. Moreover, there was nothing to show that he was ever engaged, much less, by a competent person after his superannuation. There are only references to him being on duty in some communication between the authorities. Once death is much beyond the age of superannuation and nothing on record to show that the husband of the petitioner was ever engaged, much less validly and legally, no specific direction can be issued to the authorities for making any payment.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to death-cum-pension benefits for her deceased husband who died after reaching the age of superannuation.
Whether the Court should issue a direction to grant benefits without verification of the husband's post-superannuation employment.
Batasi Devi
The State of Bihar through Home Secretary, Government of Bihar
The Director General of Police Home Guard, Bihar
The District Commandant, Home Guard, Madhubani
The District Commandant, Home Guard, Patna
The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
