IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.366 of 2006 SMT.Phul Sundar Devi aged about 53 years, wife of Shyam Bihari Singh, resident of village Birampur, P.O. Birampur, P.S. Koelwar, District Bhojpur (Arrah) Bihar. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Department of Home, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Home, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Director General of Police (Admn.), Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur, East Area, Bhagalpur. 7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Area, Saharsa. 8. The Superintendent of Police, Saharsa. 9. The District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa. 10. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Saharsa. 11. The Director, Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna. 12. The Treasury Officer, Bhojpur (Arrah) 13. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Dhrub Narain, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan. For the Respondents 1to 12 : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, S.C.XXII & Shailendra kumar Singh, J.C. to S.C. XXII For Respondent No. 13 : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 20th November, 2008. Smt. Phul Sundar Devi is the appellant before us. She is wife of Shyam Bihari Singh. Shyam Bihari Singh was appointed as a constable in the month of September, 1961 in the district of Shahabad. - 2 - He is said to have been transferred on two occasions. For the period from 1st March, 1968 to 30th April, 1968, he is said to have remained absent from duty un-authorisedly and was discharged from service on 6th May, 1968. That Shyam Bihari Singh is still alive is not in dispute. That Shyam Bihari Singh has not challenged the order of his discharge at any point of time is also not in dispute. According to the petitioner, her husband is not mentally well and due to mental ailments he could not take any steps in challenging the order of discharge and claim benefits like invalid pension, gratuity etc. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 19th July, 2005 claiming therein that direction be issued to the respondents to pay her invalid pension, gratuity and G.P.F. from the date her husband was discharged on 6th May, 1968 along with interest. The writ petition has been dismissed by the Single Judge on 17th April, 2006 and, hence, the present appeal. 2. Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the order of discharge dated 6th May, 1968 has not been put in issue in the writ petition by the petitioner. He also admitted that Shyam Bihari Singh has also not challenged the order of discharge. We assume in favour of the appellant that her husband is not mentally well and, therefore, he could not pursue the remedy for invalid pension etc., but the question is whether for the services rendered by Shyam Bihari Singh for six years and eight months, his wife is entitled to invalid pension. Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted, and in our view fairly, that he has not come across any rule which entitles the - 3 - appellant to such pension. In the circumstances, even if Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules is held to be applicable, the fact of the matter is that the appellant is not entitled to invalid pension as claimed by her. 3. In the circumstances, dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. 4. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-