The petitioner claims to be the wife of a retired Judicial Officer.
The petitioner is a 96 year old widow whose husband, she claims, was in the service of the State of Bihar as a Judicial Magistrate. The late husband of the petitioner served as a Judicial Officer for 13 years and then after his retirement he is said to have been granted an extension for five years. He is also said to have finally retired in May, 1963; from which we should presume that he actually retired five years before and in 1963 his extension also came to an end. The retired employee died on 20.06.1989 till which time he is said to have been drawing pension. His PPO number is stated but the petitioner claims that the book is lost. It is also stated that at the time of retirement of her husband, there was no provision for grant of family pension as per the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy noted from the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 that the provision for family pension was introduced with effect from 1st April, 1964 vide Family Pension Scheme for State Government Employees, 1964, before the death of the pensioner. The claim made now after more than 30 years is grossly delayed. The petitioner also does not have any substantiating material to indicate that she was married to the Judicial Officer. Even according to the petitioner, her husband was first married to another lady, from which marriage, they had two children. The first wife is said to have died, but the date of death or the death certificate is not produced. The petitioner’s marriage to the deceased employee is also not substantiated.
The petitioner only relies on the passport issued to her and the AADHAR Card .
First of all, it is noted by the Court that there is nothing to indicate that the Petitioner’s husband is the person who was serving in the judicial service of the State. Further, both these documents are issued long after the death of the Judicial Officer who is said to have retired from the service of the State.
For want of any substantiating materials to prove the petitioner’s marriage and even to establish the service rendered by her husband and also the gross delay which has occurred, commends the Court to reject the petition.