Patna High Court
Animesh Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar on 13 November, 2024
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7432 of 2022
======================================================
Animesh Ranjan, Son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha, Resident of A-46,
Magistrate Colony, Road No. 3A, Ashiana Road, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District-
Patna, Pin- 800025
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. Ambrish Ranjan Son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha Resident of A- 46,
Magistrate Colony, Road No.3A, Ashiana Road, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District-
Patna, Pin- 800025.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Dipak, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, GP-5
For the Vigilance : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-11-2024
Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner with Mr. Prabhat Kumar Dipak,
learned Advocate, Mr. Nadim Seraj, learned Advocate for the
State, Mr. Anil Singh, learned Advocate for the Vigilance and
Mr. Raju Giri, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 5.
2. The petitioner, who is none else but the full
brother of respondent no. 5, has come before this Court by
invoking its jurisdiction seeking quashing of the memo no.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7432 of 2022 dt.13-11-2024
11797 dated 11.12.2020 issued by the Under Secretary, General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, whereby a
decision has been taken to incorporate the name of respondent
no. 5 as the beneficiary of family pension after the demise of his
mother. The petitioner also sought a direction upon the
respondent to remove the name of respondent no. 5 as the
beneficiary of family pension and direct to conduct an enquiry
with regard to the disability certificate of respondent no. 5, on
the basis of which he procured the family pension.
3. Learned Senior Advocate narrating the short
facts of the case has contended that the father of the petitioner
was an officer of Indian Administrative Service and was serving
in the State of Bihar. He finally superannuated in the year 1995
and died on 26.06.2017, leaving behind his wife Vishwamohini
Sinha, two sons and two daughters.
4. Upon the death of the father of the petitioner, the
benefit of family pension has been extended to the mother of the
petitioner who also died on 27.10.2020. In the mean time, the
respondent no. 5, the elder brother of the petitioner had procured
certificate of disability, issued on 07.04.2003 by one Vocational
Rehabilitation Centre showing 40% of disability.
5. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner in collusion
Patna High Court CWJC No.7432 of 2022 dt.13-11-2024
with the officers of the Health Department, got another
disability certificate on 08.06.2004 by office of the Civil
Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna showing the
disability to the extent of 55%. Basing upon the disability
certificate, the elder brother of the petitioner had applied for the
benefit of the family pension and on receipt thereof, the Under
Secretary, General Administration Department vide letter no.
11797 dated 11.09.2020, recommended the claim of the
petitioner to the Accountant General, Bihar to incorporate his
name after the death of his mother, for benefit of the family
pension on the basis of such disability certificate.
6. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
contended that apart from the fact that the disability certificate
was a forged one, as the two certificates issued by the Central
Government and the State Government are contrary to each
other. This is also the fact that the respondent no. 5 is not a
handicapped or disabled person who has been living his life as a
common abled body. Moreover, the wife of the respondent no. 5
is working with Bihar State Co-operative Land Development
Bank and having a source of income and can very well sustain
her family.
7. The mother of the petitioner had made a serious
Patna High Court CWJC No.7432 of 2022 dt.13-11-2024
objection to the claim of respondent no. 5 as beneficiary of
family pension on account of his misconduct and quarrelsome
nature, who has been continuously engaged in causing mental
and physical torture to his mother and other family members.
He has also indulged in extorting family pension from his
mother. On account of the aforesaid fact, the mother of the
petitioner had also filed an application before the S.H.O., Rajiv
Nagar, seeking police protection to her life and property and to
take legal action against her elder son (respondent no. 5).
8. Per Contra learned Advocate for the State
submitted that in terms of Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 22 of All India
Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 there is a
clear stipulation that if the son or daughter of a member of
service is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind
including the mentally retardation or is physically crippled or
disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living, even
after attaining the age of 25 years, may be entitled to get family
pension.
9. It is further contended that on receipt of the
application submitted by respondent no. 5, he was asked to
submit the latest disability certificate whereupon the latest
disability certificate issued by the Medical Board under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7432 of 2022 dt.13-11-2024
Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon, Patna was made available to the
department. After proper verification and getting the
authenticity of the certificate confirmed by the Civil Surgeon-
cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna, the recommendation has
been made to the Accountant General (A & E) Bihar to
incorporate the name of respondent no. 5 in pension payment
order of his late father vide letter no. 11797 dated 11.12.2020.
10. The respondent no. 5 also appeared through his
counsel and submits at the Bar that at the very outset the writ
petition is not maintainable on account of any locus to the
petitioner, in as much as, no harm or any injury has been caused
to the writ petitioner by incorporating the name of respondent
no. 5 as the beneficiary of family pension. Reference has also
been made to Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 22 of All India Service
(Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. It is also
contended that on account of personal grudge and malice, the
present writ petition has been filed.
11. Having heard the learned Advocate for the
respective parties, and after perusal of the materials available on
record, this Court is of the view that Second Proviso to Sub
Rule 7 of Rule 22 of All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement
Benefits) Rules, 1958 empowers the authorities to extend the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7432 of 2022 dt.13-11-2024
benefit of family pension after the demise of the member of the
All India Services and his spouse, in case if the son or daughter
of a member of service is suffering from any disorder or
disability of mind, including the mentally retarded or is
physically crippled or disabled, so as to render him or her
unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years,
the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for
life, subject to the condition stipulated therein.
12. It is admitted position that way back in the year
2004 the medical certificate issued by the office of the Civil
Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna in favour of the
petitioner disclosed the disability to the extent of 55%. Upon
submission of the application for family pension on the basis of
disability, an upto date disability certificate was called for by the
Medical Board. The Medical Board under the Chairmanship of
Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna had certified
vide its certificate dated 05.08.2020 holding that the respondent
no. 5 is disabled to the extent of 55% and, as such, unable to
earn his living on his own. The genuineness of the certificate
has also been verified before the recommendation to the
Accountant General (A & E) Bihar, Patna to incorporate the
name of the respondent no. 5 in the pension payment order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7432 of 2022 dt.13-11-2024
the erstwhile employee.
13. This Court also does not find any illegality in
the procedure adopted by the State Officials in extending the
benefit of family pension to a disabled son in accordance with
the prescriptions provided under the Rules, 1958.
14. Moreover, the respondent no. 5 was duly
examined by the Medical Board under the Chairmanship of
Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna and after
proper examination, the certificate has been issued. The
petitioner is also not an aggrieved person and, as such, lacking
any locus to assail the impugned order.
15. The aggrieved person is someone who has been
harmed by an order or by an action of any person or the
authorities, however in the case in hand, this Court does not find
that the impugned order in any manner transgresses the right
and entitlement of the petitioner or causing any harm.
16. The writ petition sans any merit, fit to be
dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.11.2024
Transmission Date NA
