IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11196 of 2009 REETA PANDEY, WIFE OF LATE AJAY KUMAR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF C/O- SRI N.N. DUBEY, SINDHU BHAWAN, FLAT NO. 4 ROAD NO. 9, PATEL NAGAR, POLICE STATION – SHASTRI NAGAR, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL (BIHAR SECTOR) CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, DIGHA COMPLEX, ASHIANA DIGHA ROAD, PATNA. 4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, GROUP CENTRE, MOKAMA GHAT, DISTRICT PATNA. 5. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, DIGHA COMPLEX, ASHIANA DIGHA ROAD , PATNA ----------- 08. 08.02.2010 Heard the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order contained in letter no. 8/2009-CC dated 8th of July 2009, (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner was communicated that she is not entitled to the extra ordinary pension on account of death of her husband who was a Deputy Commandant as the death in question has occurred which cannot be attributed in discharge of his duties. He further submits that as stated in Paragraphs- 17 and 18 of the writ application it would appear that the death in question can be said to have caused while in discharge of his duty and as such petitioner is entitled to receive the extra ordinary 2 pension. Mr. Sarvadev Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that admittedly death of the husband of the petitioner caused in the night when her husband came out of his room and went on the roof from where he fell down which led to her death and as such, death cannot be said to have attributed towards the bona fide duty. However, in case petitioner represents the matter, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of his claims, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no.3. In such view of the matter, in case such representation giving specific claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider each of the claims raised by the petitioner in his representation in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation and disposed of same by a reasoned order. Order passed on such representation shall be 3 communicated to the petitioner by registered post. It goes without saying that in case the representation of the petitioner finds favour, respondent no. 3 shall simultaneously necessary orders with regard to the claim for payment of extra ordinary family pension as raised in her representation. However, if the decision goes against the petitioner, it will be open for her to assail the same in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)