IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2725 of 2007 MEENA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 13/ 10.12.2009 Heard Mr. Fulman Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh learned counsel representing the Board. On earlier two occasions learned for the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit with information as to whether the husband of the petitioner was member of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 or the Family Pension Scheme, 1971. The petitioner has claimed her relief based on an amendment incorporated in Sub Rule 13(B) of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1972 and submits that in view of the said amendment she was also entitled for pension from the respondent Board. Despite the adjournment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to bring on record any document so as to show whether the husband had exercised any option for payment of pension in terms of the amendment which became effective from 27.07.2001. It is an admitted position that the husband of the petitioner expired on 18.5.2003 and although the amendment in the relevant rules came into effect from 2 27.7.2001 but the husband of the petitioner never chose to exercise any option thereunder. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board submits that husband of the petitioner having opted for withdrawal of family pension from the Army, was not entitled to any further family pension from the respondent Board. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. This application is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)