Dismissed

Savitri Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Jan 2020CWJC/23207/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning family pension, the Patna High Court dismissed the petitioner’s claim. The husband had been removed from service in 1997. The Court found no material to authenticate that he went missing. As the removal was final and unassailed, the application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The application for family pension and consequent reliefs was disposed of without issuing directions to grant pension.

Savitri Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23207 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Savitri Devi aged about 75 years (Female), Wife of late Hardyal Sinha @ Hari Dyal, Resident of Village- Katgharawan, P.O. Chausa, P.S. Buxar(Mufassil), District- Buxar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶7

The Secretary, Agriculture, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶8

The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶9

The Agriculture Director, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶10

The Accountant General, Virchand Patel Marg, Patna.

¶11

The Director General, Provident Fund, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶12

The District Provident Fund Officer, Patna.

¶13

The Joint Agriculuture Director, Upyogi Anusandhan Bihar, Patna- 1,

¶14

The District Treasury Officer, Patna.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Buxar.

¶16

The Officer in Charge, Buxar (Mufassil), Police Station, District- Buxar.

¶17

... ... Respondent/s

¶18

======================================================

¶19

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh with Mr. Pradhan Murli Manohar Prasad, Advocates For the State : Ms. Shalini Rani, AC to SC 17 For the Accountant General : Mr. Vivekanad Kumar, Advocate

¶20

======================================================

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Date : 06-01-2020

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AC

¶24

to SC 17 for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General.

¶25

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.23207 of 2019 dt.06-01-2020 2/3

¶27

“(i) To issue an appropriate order/s, direction/s including a writ preferably in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents to grant of family pension and arrears thereof to the petitioner whose husband was unheard for about 7 years and presumed to be dead.

¶28

(ii) To direct the respondents to make the payment of consequential relief/s to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

(iii) To make the payment of statutory or penal interest whichever is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

(iv) To any other relief/s to which the petitioner may found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

At the very outset, the Court finds that the husband of the petitioner had stopped attending to his duties with effect from 01.09.1987 and finally he was removed from service by order contained in Memo No. 713 dated 14.06.1997.

¶32

The petitioner claims that her husband had gone missing from 01.09.1987. However, with regard to the same, there is no material which can be relied upon in law to authenticate that the husband of the petitioner had gone missing as there is not even a police report. The explanation given in the pleadings that she had approached the police but no action was taken cannot be accepted as it cannot be believed that the wife and other relatives of a person who goes missing would only casually approach the authority and thereafter take no steps in

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.23207 of 2019 dt.06-01-2020 3/3

¶34

the matter.

¶35

Having regard to the aforesaid, the Court finds that there cannot be any direction to grant the reliefs prayed for as the service of the husband of the petitioner had been terminated way back on 14.06.1997 and the order has attained finality since then without being assailed anywhere.

¶36

In the aforesaid background, the application stands disposed off.

¶37

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶38

Anjani/-

¶39

AFR/NAFR U

Savitri Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi v. The State of Bihar

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

Chhedi Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Prashant Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Kumar Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Kaushalya Devi Vs The Gaya Municipal Corporation

Vikash Prasad Saw @ Sao Vs The State of Bihar