IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1361 of 2007 SUNAINA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 06/ 06.04.2010 Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha No. 2 for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhat Bharti, assisting counsel to G.P. 2 for the State and Mr. L.P.K. Rajgrihar for the Accountant General. The only issue which required consideration of this Court was whether the non-consideration of the petitioner’s application for commutation of pension by the Accountant General had any lawful support. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the pension form enclosed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition submitted that the husband of the petitioner had filed an application for commutation of pension but it was never acted upon and the husband of the petitioner having retired with effect from 31.1.2006 while holding the post of Head Master expired on 6.10.2006. Learned counsel thus submitted that there being no fault on the part of the husband of the petitioner in seeking the commutation of pension, the petitioner was entitled to the same. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Accountant General enclosing the pension claim form as received in the office of the Accountant General and with reference thereto it is stated that the application received in the office of the Accountant General did not contain the signature of the employee. The relevant - 2 - portion of the pension form is enclosed at Annexure-A and indisputably the commutation of pension application does not bear the signature of late Balram Mandal, the husband of the petitioner. On the contrary, the commutation of pension application form relied upon by the petitioner though contains the signature of late Balram Mandal but the same does not contain any approval of the controlling department and which signature is present on the pension claim form enclosed by the Accountant General. Having regard to the documents aforesaid, I am convinced that the application received in the office of the Accountant General for commutation of pension did not contain the signature of the deceased employee and in that view of the matter, the claim for commutation is not admissible. Even otherwise the deceased employee having expired on 6.10.2006, there is no provision under the Bihar Pension Rules for commutation of family pension. The writ petition is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)