Smt. Veena Rani vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3986 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12200 of 2022
     ======================================================

Smt. Veena Rani, W/o Late Jagdish Kumar, Resident of Mohalla-D-501, Apex Acacia, Valley Sector-3, Vaishali, Gajiabad, Uttar Pradesh 201010 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms, Patna.

2. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna.

3. The Under Secretary to the Govt., Finance Department (Personal Claim Section), Government of Bihar.

4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

5. The Registrar, Civil Court, Patna.

6. The District Treasury Officer, Patna.

7. The Principal Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna.

8. The Joint Commissioner-cum-Director G.P.F. (Finance Department), Pant Bhawan, 5th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna-4.

9. The Assistant Commissioner-cum-Director G.P.F. (Finance Department), Pant Bhawan, 5th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna-4.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                     Ms. Pooja Kumari, Advocate
     For the State           :       Mr.P.K. Verma (AAG-3)
                                     Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. to AAG-3
     For the High Court      :       Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 24-08-2023

1. The petitioner in the above writ petition asserts that

she is the wife of a retired Judicial Officer and claims the

retirement benefits due to him. The Judicial Officer retired on

17.01.1991 and unfortunately the High Court and the State

Government does not have any records with them. The claim Patna High Court CWJC No.12200 of 2022 dt.24-08-2023

itself is grossly delayed and made long after the death of the

Judicial Officer; which death occurred on 03.06.2011. The

claims are highly belated and in such circumstance the absence

of records with the authorities cannot be faulted.

2. The Judicial Officer by name Jagdish Kumar is said

to have been appointed on 20.12.1960 and also is said to have

retired on 17.01.1991 while he was continuing as an Additional

Munsif-I at Patna Civil Court, Patna. The petitioner claims that

she was assured of payment of the death-cum-retiral benefits

but, the promise was not fulfilled. The petitioner also claims that

a number of representations were made.

3. It is pertinent to notice that there is no claim of a

representation having been made by the Judicial Officer who

retired in 1991 and died in the year 2011. The first of the

representations said to have been made by the petitioner herein,

is on 15.12.2017 before the Registrar of the Patna Civil Court,

Patna. Communications are produced along with the writ

petition, wherein the petitioner was directed to furnish the

General Provident Fund Number of the Judicial Officer and the

account details as also the details of the advances taken by the

Officer, the No Dues Certificate and evidence to prove the

marriage with the Judicial Officer. However, none of these Patna High Court CWJC No.12200 of 2022 dt.24-08-2023

documents were produced by the petitioner and she continued

making representations to the authorities, leaving the authorities

helpless in so far as there being no documents available,

especially due to the long lapse of time after which the

application was made.

4. The High Court has filed a counter affidavit

specifically expressing inability in tracing out the documents

and again requesting the petitioner to supply the necessary

documents. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

High Court also points out that there is serious suspicion cast on

the claim made by the petitioner since even according to the

papers submitted by the petitioner and the declared age, she

would have been married at the age of 13 and had her first child

at the age of 14; highly improbable, especially when the alleged

husband was continuing as a Judicial Officer. The absence of

any document proving the marriage itself has to be viewed in

the said perspective is the contention.

5. The DDO, Civil Court, Patna has also filed a

counter affidavit. It is specifically pointed out that the papers

submitted by the petitioner herein dated 01.03.2018 were

without necessary documents such as the No Dues Certificates,

attested Pay Slips and so on and so forth. The petitioner was Patna High Court CWJC No.12200 of 2022 dt.24-08-2023

required to furnish the GPF Forms which also has not been done

by the petitioner. As per the details available with the Civil

Court, Patna as per the Acquaintance Roll the Judicial Officer

had drawn salary for the months of November and December,

1990 and January, 1991. There is absolutely no details available

with the authorities as to the length of service, break if any, that

occurred in the length of service, the dues of the Judicial Officer

and so on and so forth.

6. We cannot but deny the discretionary remedy sought

for in the above writ petition, especially looking at the balancing

considerations. The petitioner's claim arises from the fact that she

is the wife of a Judicial Officer but, there is nothing produced to

prove the marriage with the Judicial Officer. In fact, the date of

birth of the petitioner is declared to be 20.05.1955 as per the

Pension Papers submitted by the petitioner herself, enclosed along

with Annexure-H. The petitioner has also declared that her first

daughter was born on 24.09.1969. Hence, when she was 14 years

old she delivered the baby and the marriage in that context, would

have occurred a year back. This makes it incumbent upon the

petitioner to prove the marriage with the aid of a valid Marriage

Certificate or otherwise with due evidence which cannot be done

in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. We have to emphasize, once again, that the claim Patna High Court CWJC No.12200 of 2022 dt.24-08-2023

itself is grossly delayed. The Judicial Officer retired in the year

1991 and was alive for another 20 years, his death having occurred

in the year 2011. There was no attempt to seek for pension and in

that circumstance there is also nothing to show that the Judicial

Officer retired from the service. It is also to be noticed that despite

30 years of service the Judicial Officer is said to have retired from

the post of Additional Munsif itself. The petitioner has an

allegation that after retirement her husband, the Judicial Officer,

was sick and hence could not apply for the pension. There is also

nothing produced to establish this fact.

8. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the writ

petition, especially when the various facts pleaded and asserted in

the memorandum of writ petition are not proved at all.

9. The writ petition would stand dismissed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

(Partha Sarthy, J) P.K.P./-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          30.08.2023
Transmission Date