IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17361 of 2011 Dharmshila Devi @ Dharmshila Kuer, wife of Late Braj Mohan Prasad, resident of Village Dhobdiha, P.S. Nasriganj, District Rohtas at present Mohalla Gorakshani, P.O. and P.S. Sasaram (Town), District Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Sasaram Nagar Parishad through its Executive Officer, Sasaram. 4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Sasaram. 5. The Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Sasaram, District Rohtas. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 4. 24.10.2011. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P.5, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2/State of Bihar and Shri Vijay Shankar upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 5/Nagar Parishad, Sasaram. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for directing the respondents/Nagar Parishad to make payment of family pension. The husband of the petitioner was an employee and posted as Tax Daroga and on 31.1.2002, he retired after attaining the age of 58 years. After retirement, he was provided retiral dues and he was getting pension and thereafter, on 17.11.2006, he died leaving behind his legal 2 heirs which include petitioner being widow of the employee and sons and daughters. After death of the husband, it has been stated in the writ petition that retiral dues of her husband i.e. pension from the month of October,2005 to March,2006 was paid to the petitioner vide Cheque No.0171880 dated 1.3.2007 and thereafter, despite persuasion made by the petitioner, the authority concerned has not fixed family pension nor she is getting family pension till date. Left with no alternative, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 5/Nagar Parishad. In the counter affidavit, a bald statement has been made that there is no statutory provision for grant of family pension to the legal heirs of the deceased employee of the Corporation. In support of its stand, the Corporation has brought on record a Government notification vide Annexure-b to the counter affidavit i.e. letter no.1268 dated 17th April,2006. Shri Vijay Shankar Upadhyay, learned 3 counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5 submits that there is also paucity of fund in the Nagar Parishad. The petitioner, by filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit, has brought on record a copy of rules as Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Rule-35 of the Rules which prescribes for family pension. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that after retirement, husband of the petitioner was being paid pension as well as the provisions contained in the Rules, the court is of the opinion that there is no reason to deny family pension to the petitioner being widow of the deceased employee of respondents/Nagar Parishad. Regarding plea of financial crunch, the court is of the opinion that if the employees of the Corporation are getting their salary regularly, the petitioner cannot be denied her legal right for getting family pension. Accordingly, the writ petition 4 stands allowed directing the respondents, particularly respondent nos.3 to 5 to take all steps to fix family pension and start paying the same to the petitioner. All steps for clearing the grievance of the petitioner shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to get arrear of family pension. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)