IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8884 of 2010 1. Krishna Bhuwan Prasad Sinha S/O Late Satyanarayan Prasad R/O Srikrishna Nagar, Deepshikha Road, P.S. Begusarai, Distt.- Begusarai, At Present Residing In The House Of Dr. C.D. Narayan, Panchdev Bhawan, Ramji Gali, East Boring Canal Road, P.S. Budha Colony, Distt.- Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, Patna 2. The Finance Commissioner, Finance Department Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Personal Claim Cell Old Secretariat, P.S.- Sachivalaya, Patna 4. The Secretary, Road Construction Department Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Patna 5. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Patna ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rupak Kumar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, Adv. ------------- 4. 14.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The original writ petitioner is stated to have been deceased approximately two months ago during the pendency of the writ application. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the heirs were desirous of pursuing the matter since it had financial implication for the family of the deceased. Due to unavoidable reasons a formal application for substitution could not be filed. The Court queried the counsel for the State if he insisted on a formal application for substitution to be filed or was agreeable to the writ application being disposed in view of the limited nature of relief 2 that could now be granted to the widow. Counsel for the State fairly acknowledged that he does not oppose the limited relief that may follow in the changed circumstances to the widow by insisting on a formal application for substitution. The Court appreciates the gesture. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to make necessary corrections in the cause title of the writ petition accordingly during the course of the day. The deceased superannuated from the post of Junior Engineer on 31.12.1999. He moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1599 of 2009 seeking the relief to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.4.1995 alleging that his juniors had been promoted from that date by orders passed in 1999. Disposing the writ application the Court noticed that there was no explanation by the petitioner why he was waiting for long years from 1999 before filing the writ application and disposed it with directions to represent. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that the respondents have now granted the deceased promotion from 1.4.1995 but 3 notionally without financial benefits. Reading it in conjunction with the counter affidavit there is no explanation worth the name for this belated promotion. It is submitted that if the fault lay with the respondents in not considering and granting promotion in time, the deceased and after him his family members are entitled to full consequential monetary benefits from the date of promotion. Strong reliance has been placed on a judgment reported in A.I.R. 2002 SC 808 (Food Corporation of India Vs. S.N. Nagarkar) more particularly Paragraph-19 of the same. While counsel for the petitioner may be correct in his submission that an order for retrospective promotion, delay being attributable to the respondents alone, shall entitle the employee to retrospective monetary benefits, yet there can be no straight-jacket formula in respect of the same. Each case shall depend on its own facts. In the present factual scenario the claim for retrospective monetary benefits cannot be considered by ignoring the observations of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1599 of 2009 that there was no explanation on part of the deceased in not having moved in time for enforcement of his right. Any order today to grant 4 retrospective monetary benefits shall be in teeth of the earlier order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1599 of 2009. The Court therefore finds it difficult to grant the relief for actual consequential monetary benefits to the wife of the deceased from the date of promotion. However, the Court does consider it prudent to mould the relief. The Court does not accede to the submission on behalf of the petitioner that she is entitled to full arrears of pension from 1.1.2000 deeming it that the deceased superannuated from the post of Assistant Engineer. It has already been discussed that any order or direction to this effect shall be completely negating the observation against the deceased in C.W.J.C. No. 1599 of 2009. Even if this Court were to keep in mind the observation with regard to delay in C.W.J.C. No. 1599 of 2009, yet in delayed and belated claims for arrears of salary, judicial pronouncements have read down the right as enforceable for the past three years only. That would entitle the revision of pension from 2006. But the present is not a case of salary but arrears of pension. The changed circumstances where the widow now only has a source of family 5 pension for survival also cannot be ignored. The Court therefore in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure justice in accordance with law considers it prudent to direct that the pension shall stand revised from April, 2006 and the petitioner shall be entitled to all arrears of pension of her deceased husband till the date of his death. Thereafter her family pension shall again be revised accordingly and necessary corrections made in the pension payment order. It may only be noticed that her name also figures as a nominee in the pension payment order. Since the relief now relates to a widow, any person or authority to whose attention and/or knowledge the present order is brought, are bound to act expeditiously whether they are parties to the writ application or not. Let this order be complied with in its entirety within a maximum period of five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)