IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11050 of 2002 Mostt.Param Jyoti Devi, Wife of Late Bansh Bahadur Singh, Resident of Village Siswan Buzurg, P.O. Anugrah Nagar, Via- Mairwan, Police Station Mairwan, District Siwan. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Education Establishment Committee, through it’s Chairman, District Magistrate, Siwan, District Siwan. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan. 4. The Treasury Officer, Siwan, District Siwan. 5. The Head Master of Govt., Middle School Jhajhaur Anchal- Guthni, District Siwan. ------ Respondents ----------- 3 25.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the widow of the employee late Bansh Bahadur Singh, who had died on 10.11.1993, has been suffering on account of apathy of the respondents towards payment of admissible to her by way of death cum retirement benefit of her husband. This Court would find that the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is confined only to the following extent:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions in the nature of Mandamus for commanding and directing the Respondent 2 authorities for compliance of Memo No. 1620 Siwan, dated 27.3.2000 by which it is clear that the husband of the petitioner payment of difference of salary since April 1987 to March 1988, one yearly increment since March 1989 to September 1991 and the adjusted amount of one yearly increment since October 1991 to December, 1992 and for other necessary reliefs of the husband of the petitioner who died in harness while working as an Assistant Teacher which has not been paid to the husband of the petitioner due to some mistake without any reasonable and valid grounds. And for other necessary relief/reliefs on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.” From annexure-5, it would appear that the cadre controlling authority of the husband of petitioner being District Superintendent of Education, Siwan had issued certain directions to the headmaster of the school, who has been vested with power of drawing and disbursing authority in the school in question. Such directions were issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan on 27th March, 2000 and it is the case of the petitioner that they have 3 not been complied as yet. Counsel for the State, with reference to the counter affidavit would draw attention of this Court towards the letter of the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan dated 9.11.2002, whereby and whereunder, an explanation was asked from the concerned Headmaster as to why the payment as directed by him in his earlier order as contained in Annexure-5 was not made to the widow, the petitioner. This counter affidavit, however, having been sworn on 18.11.2002 and filed in this Court on 28th January, 2003, the counsel for the State is not aware about the present status and as to whether the payment has been made to petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court would direct the respondent no.3 and 5 to ensure that if the payment to the petitioner as directed by the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan in Annexure-5 has not been made, the same must be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 4 At the same time, it would be open for the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan to fix responsibility for delay in making payment of the amount to the petitioner and pass appropriate order after initiating departmental proceeding against the erring headmaster for not complying his order dated 27.3.2000 as contained in Annexure-5. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)