IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.455 of 2009 MANORMA DEVI WIFE OF LATE BISHUNDEO PRASAD EX-LAB TECHNICIAN, CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT, A.N.S.COLLEGE,BARH,PATNA,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.SARHAN,P.S.PANDARAK,DISTRICT PATNA Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES,GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 2.THE VICE CHANCELLOR,MAGADH UNIVERSITY,BODH GAYA,GAYA 3.THE REGISTRAR,MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, GAYA 4.THE PRINCIPAL, A.N.S.COLLEGE, BARH,PATNA 5.DR.SATYA NARAYAN SINGH THROUGH THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY,BODH GAYA, GAYA 6.DR.RAM RAJ SINGH THROUGH THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, GAYA ----- For the petitioner : Mr.Rajendra Pd.Singh,Sr.Advocate For respondent no.1: Mr.Arjun Pd.Singh, AC to SC 2 For respondents 2 & 3:Mr.Rajendra Kumar Giri,Advocate ----------- 06/ 14.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that as per relevant statute of the University covering family pension in case of death while in service, the employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service so as to entitle his family for family pension. It has been submitted that even before 1.4.1980 when the relevant statute appears to have been made applicable, the same position existed in law and hence, the petitioner should have been sanctioned family pension when her husband died on 14.10.1978 on the post of Lab Technician in 2 A.N.S.College, Barh, Patna. On behalf of the University, it has been replied that the writ court only noticed the facts submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner and since the aforesaid provision in the statute was not brought to notice of the writ court, the writ petition was disposed of without granting relief of family pension with limited relief for paying back of Rs.l058/- deducted from the salary of the petitioner’s husband as provident fund contribution. According to learned counsel for the University, the writ petition was filed in the year 2005 i.e. after more than 25 years of the death of the petitioner’s husband but this was not kept in mind by the writ court and no attention was paid to the issues raised in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit that the husband of the writ petitioner had been appointed by the Governing Body without jurisdiction after the college had been converted into a constituent college with effect from 18th September, 1975. In our view, the appeal can either be 3 disposed of by refusing further relief to the appellant on the ground of inordinate delay in approaching this Court or matter may be remitted back to the writ court. However, since the delay is writ large on the face of the record, we are not inclined to remit the matter to the writ court. The appeal is therefore not found fit for any further relief to the writ petitioner. It is accordingly disposed of. It is clarified that the money on account of provident fund deposits should be refunded to the writ petitioner along with permissible statutory interest at an early date in any case within a period of three months. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)