IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1576 of 2008 SAVITA CHOUDHARY WIFE OF LATE NAVIN CHANDRA CHOUDHARY RESIDENT OF NEAR PROF. J.N. SHARMA’S RESIDENCE, MADHANI LANE, MITHUNPURA, P.O. RAMANA, DISTRICT MUZUFFARPUR Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. FINANCIAL CONTROLLER I, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY CIRCLE MUZUFFARPUR. 4. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY CIRCLE, MUZUFFARPUR. ----------- 05. 23.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nilu Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband was sanctioned the commutation of pension vide Annexure 1 and 2. It is submitted that before the commuted value of pension could be paid, her husband died on 26th of April 2003. It is further submitted that the petitioner who is the widow of the deceased employee is entitled to receive the commuted value of pension, which has not been given to her despite representation. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board taking the stand that the scheme for commutation of pension was dispensed with considering 2 the financial condition of the Board vide letter no. 2828 dated 17.01.2003 and further clarified by subsequent letter no. 11 dated 3rd of January 2004 vide Annexures – A and B respectively to the effect that the scheme for commutation of pension has been dispensed with and any amount deducted from the monthly pension of the concerned pensioner be refunded back. The learned counsel in support of the above has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in the case of Mohan Prasad Asthana versus Bihar State Electricity Board and others reported in 2005 ( 4) PLJR Page 47 whereby this Court considering the financial condition of the Board, upheld the decision taken by the Board dispensing the scheme for payment of commutation of pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply has relied upon the provisions of Rule 258 of the Bihar Pension Rules quoted below:- “If the pensioner dies on or after the day following that on which commutation became absolute but before receiving the commutation value, this value shall be paid to his heirs.” Considering the rival submission of the parties and their respective pleadings, it is not in dispute that the 3 scheme for commutation of pension has been dispensed with by the Board as per the decision contained in Annexures- A and B. The grievance of the petitioner is that after sanction the pensioner died and as such, the sanctioned money is to be paid to the legal representatives in terms of Rule 258 of the Bihar Pension Rules. In the opinion of the Court, the aforesaid provision manifest that while the scheme of payment of the commutation of pension remains operative and the pensioner dies in such circumstances the heirs of the deceased pensioner become entitled to receive the commutation of pension. In the present case the scheme itself has been dispensed with and as such, the question of payment of the sanctioned money after the scheme is dispensed with is not available. The decision of this court as referred to the above supports the case of the respondent Board and as such, the prayer of the petitioner for directing the respondent to make the payment of the commuted value of pension cannot be allowed. However, the amount deducted from the monthly pension of the husband of the petitioner be calculated and refunded back to the petitioner with interest permissible under the rules expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months on 4 receipt/production of certified copy of the present order. The writ application accordingly disposed of with the above direction. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)