IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.11464 of 2007 ============================================= Most Samina Khatoon, Widow of Late Abdus Samad, Resident of Village and P.O. - Sitanabad, P.S. - Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District – Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Collector, Purnea. 4. District under Registrar, Purnea. 5. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= 5 13-07-2011 Heard Sri Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Md. Anisul Haque, learned AC to AAG No. 9 who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Ram Kinkar Choubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5/Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. This is the second attempt by the petitioner claiming family pension on a plea of death of so called husband which occurred in the year 1961. Earlier the petitioner had approached this court vide CWJC No. 1126 of 2005 mainly for the purposes of granting family pension in view of death of husband of the petitioner which according to the petitioner in CWJC No. 1126 of 2005 had occurred in the year 1964. The said writ petition was disposed of with certain directions to the Collector, Purnea to hold an enquiry. The petitioner was also directed to produce certain certificates to show that she was legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. The said order was passed on 21.12.2005 vide Annexure – 4 to the writ petition. Subsequent to the order passed by the writ court a contempt petition was also filed vide MJC No. 1902 of 2006 which was disposed of on 20.03.2007 and liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the order which was passed by the Collector, Purnea in compliance with the order dated 21.12.2005 passed in CWJC No. 1126 of 2005. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th March, 2007 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension was rejected by the Collector, Purnea. The order has been annexed as Annexure – 7 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order passed by the writ court in CWJC No. 1126 of 2005 the petitioner had produced certificates to show that she was legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and as such she was entitled to get family pension. I have perused the order dated 5th March, 2007 passed by the Collector, Purnea. The order makes it clear that the petitioner miserably failed to establish that she was legally wedded wife of Abdus Samad. It is further clear that said Abdus Samad had not retired from the service but he was removed from the service in the year 1961 and at the time of removal from the service Abdus Samad was not entitled to get pension. It is further clear from the impugned order that family pension was introduced in the year 1964. Accordingly, since the so called husband of the petitioner himself was not entitled to get pension there is no point to consider the claim of the petitioner for granting family pension. The order passed by the Collector, Purnea gives a detailed reason. Moreover, the dispute in respect of the claim of the petitioner as to whether she was legally wedded wife of Abdus Samad or not cannot be adjudicated by a court while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In view of the facts and circumstances particularly the reason assigned in order dated 5th March, 2007 I do not find any merit in the present writ petition nor there is any ground for interference with the impugned order. The writ petition stands dismissed. PRAFUL KUMAR/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)