IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16057 of 2006 NUNUWATI DEVI wife of late Maheshwar Prasad Mandal, resident of village-Khaira Koshkapur P.S.Narpatganj,Distt.Araria...... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 2. The Secretary, Secondary Education,Human Resources Development Department,Govt. of Bihar; patna. 3. The Director,Secondary Education,Intermediate counsel Building , Budh Marg, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 5. The District Education Officer, Araria. 6. The District Magistrate, Araria 7. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Chairman District Education Establishment Committee,Araria 8. The Headmaster,Govt. High School,Narpatganj,Araria 9. The Accountant General, Bihar,Beerchand Patel Patha,Patna. ----------- Advocate for the petitioner- Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana Advocate for Accountant General:- Mr. Vivekanand Kumar- Advocate Advocate for the State.:- Mr. S.C.6 ------------- 5 24-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General. Petitioner is widow of a school teacher, Late Maheshwar Prasad Mandal who superannuated from Government High School, Narpatganj, District Araria on 31-8-1986. He is said to have died on 19-3-1988. Petitioner as widow of a deceased employee receives family pension but she has a grievance that the pension was not as per revised pay-scale. She preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C No. 2407 of 2004 for revision of pension which was allowed with costs by order dated 26-3-2004 (Annexure-3). - 2 - It appears that being encouraged by that order petitioner was advised or decided to move this court in the year 2006 claiming that her husband was wrongly not granted promotion to Senior Selection grade and a junior was granted such scale in the year 1987. In support of this case reliance has been placed upon annexure-2 a letter dated 19th June, 1987 which shows that from the concerned school two teachers were allowed senior selection grade which included one Saryug Prasad Choudhary said to be junior to the petitioner’s husband. The writ petition is no doubt a stale one and the explanation for delay is not very convincing. However, such claim of promotion has arisen, allegedly after 19th June, 1987 when a junior was granted senior selection grade. Petitioner’s husband had already superannuated on 31-8-1986. Hence the claim for promotion is actually claim for money and is not likely to affect the interest of third persons. In spite of all opportunities no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. According to counsel for the Accountant General, petitioner’s family pension has already been revised in proper scale and benefits being claimed by her can be paid only if the State authorities grant necessary promotion to her husband and allow senior selection grade from a date prior to his superannuation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Education Officer, Araria is directed to examine the aforesaid claim of the petitioner in respect of her deceased husband within three months of production/communication of a copy of this order. Appropriate - 3 - Naresh decision in accordance with law, one way or the other must be taken within the aforesaid period of three months. If decision is against the petitioner then reasons for the same in brief must be communicated to her within the said period. It goes without saying that if petitioner’s husband is granted higher pay-scale from a date when he was in service, the monetary benefits of the same and dues of pension on account of revision in appropriate scale must also be made available to the petitioner without any delay and in any case within a further period of three months. The writ petition is disposed of. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)