IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11749 of 2007 MOST.PARWATI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Birju Prasad, adv. For the respondent : Mr. Shambhu Nath, J.C. to G.P. X. ---------- 5/ 03-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim of the petitioner is that her husband, late Sukan Ram retired on 1.9.1969 from the post of a teacher in Upper primary school, Manpur, Gaya and subsequently he died on 1.12.1982 leaving behind the petitioner as his widow. The petitioner further claims that after the death of her husband, the petitioner was never given family pension to which she was legally entitled. It transpires that earlier also the petitioner moved this court in C.W.J.C.No. 3930 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the same with a direction to the authorities concerned to decide the matter in terms of general direction given in the case of Most. Rukmini Devi Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1996 (2) P.L.J.R. 348. It transpires that the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 3441 of 2005 for punishing the opposite parties for disobedience of the aforesaid order of this Court but during the pendency of the contempt petition the authorities concerned passed order dated 30.12.2005 ( Annexure-2) holding that the husband of the petitioner retired in the year 1989 when the triple benefit scheme was in operation and hence the petitioner was not entitled to any family pension. Subsequently by order dated 13.2.2007 the aforesaid M.J.C. 2 was disposed of by this Court with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order of the authorities dated 30.12.2005. Thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly the husband of the petitioner retired in the year 1969 and at that time triple benefit scheme was applicable according to which the husband of the petitioner was entitled only to pension, insurance and provident fund amounts and there was no provision for any family pension. He further states that family pension scheme was promulgated by the State Government w.e.f. 1.4.1976 only for the employees who retired after notification of the said scheme, hence the petitioner is not entitled to any family pension. In support of his contention learned counsel for the State relies upon a decision of the division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vrs. Arya Devi and others, reported in 2001 (2) P.L.J.R. 212. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. ( Supra ) this court finds no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. B.Tiwary/ ( S. N. Hussain, J )