IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6831 of 2011 Babita Devi, wife of Late Subodh Kumar, resident of Village- Rampur Dumra, P.S. Maranchi, District-Patna --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 2. The Inspector General of Central Reserve Police Force, Delhi 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Central Reserve Police Force, Mokamaghat, Bihar At & P.S. Mokamah, District-Patna 4. The Bureau Commandant 04 Batalian, 305 A.P. Camp, C.R.P.F. Rai Gaddha Orissa. -------------------- Respondents. ----------- 02 21-04-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of all the Respondents. The petitioner, who is widow of Late Subodh Kumar, has prayed for directing the Respondents to pay the family pension and other death-cum- retiral dues in respect of her husband, who died , while posted as Constable in the C.R.P.F. in the year 2007. Despite the fact that husband of the petitioner died in the year 2007, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on totally unsustainable reasons, the petitioner has been denied from getting family pension as well as other death-cum- retiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the death of her husband, she produced succession certificate issued by the competent court, the Respondents had raised unsustainable objection vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s name was recorded in the service book as wife of the deceased constable, but she has been denied to get any death-cum- retiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 has referred to Annexure-3 to the petition, which was issued by Respondent no.4, whereby certain objections were raised. Learned counsel for the Union of India has argued that the petitioner had produced incomplete succession certificate and, as such, it cannot be said that there was laches on the part of the Respondent authority. I have perused Annexure-3 to the petition. The Court is of the opinion that once the petitioner being widow of constable of CRPF, who died while in service, had produced succession certificate issued by the competent court, the authority concerned was not at all authorized to question the succession certificate. Moreover, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the Respondents that the petitioner is not widow of the deceased constable. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the Respondents can be directed to take all steps for fixation of family pension as well as for clearing death-cum- retiral dues in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be entitled to get the statutory admissible interest on delayed payment. The Respondent authority would be at liberty to get the interest of amount recovered from the officer/employee responsible for delayed in payment. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)