IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12762 of 2003 SUNAINA PRASAD S/O LATE GAGHUNANDAN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-CHURAMAN BIGHA, PS- WENA, DISTT- NALANDA --------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY & COMMISSIONER,DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH TUBE WELL PROJECT (MINOR IRRIGATION) SEKHPURA, PATNA 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TUBE WELL CIRCLE, GOVT. OF BIHAR,MITHAPUR, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TUBEL WELL CIRCLE ,ARRAH GOVT. OF BIHAR 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE WELL DIVISION, MOHANIA,BHABHUA 7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBLE WELL DIVISION, PATNA,GOVT. OF BIHAR 8. PROJECT CO-ORDINATER TUBL-WELL PROJECT (MINOR IRRIGATION,PATNA GOVT. OF BIHAR 9. A.G. BIHAR, PATNA-------------- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 7 28.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. I. A. No. 4859 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of one Pramod Kumar who claims himself to be the son of one late Raghunandan Prasad. His contention is that the petitioner of the writ application, namely, Sunaina Prasad has illegally tried to corner the benefit of retiral dues/ family pension in connivance with the respondent authority by taking his share too. Looking at the pleadings and the averments made with the supporting documents I.A. No. 4859 of 2008 was allowed on 20.1.2009. This writ application on behalf of Sunaina Prasad was filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the retiral dues etc. including the family pension to late mother on the ground that his father Raghunandan Prasad was an employee and he is entitled to claim the above dues since his father passed away in the year 1998 and nothing came to be done by the respondents. A counter affidavit was filed thereafter by the - 2 - official respondents including the above noted intervenor application which gives a new dimension to the claim made by the petitioner. It emerges that the father of the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case in which even the present petitioner was made a party. After due trial which is Sessions Trial No. 314/112/1988/90 father of the petitioner was convicted for life and present petitioner was also found guilty under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 27 of the Arms Act. This fact was suppressed from the respondent authority. But when the above fact finally emerged an order dated 29.4.2008 in exercise of power under Rule 43B of the Bihar pension Rules came to be passed. Based on the conviction 100 % pension and 100% gratuity was ordered to be withheld. The above order has been brought on record as Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent no.6. Keeping the above order in mind, therefore there is no occasion now for the Court to direct the respondents to pay any retiral dues including the family pension. But there are certain heads on which payments can be made to the family members of the deceased Raghunandan Prasad. Some payments had already been cornered by the present petitioner, Sunaina Prasad and it is seriously contested by the intervenor that any part of the same has been shared with him. Be that as it may, the respondents are restrained from releasing any dues keeping the nature of dispute between the - 3 - parties till either the petitioner or the intervenor, namely Pramod Kumar obtains a succession certificate and produces the same before the competent authority. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)