IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.203 of 2005 SUBHADRA DEVI W/O LATE I.D.MISTRY, R/O OF VILLAGE + P.O.- PUNADIH (OBERA) P.S.-OBERA,DISTT- AURANGABAD ---------------PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION THROUGH THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN,R-BLOCK ROAD NO.6, PATNA. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN, R-BLOCK ROAD NO.6 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL ACCOUNTS, PATNA MEGHDUT BHAWAN, PATNA-1 4. THE POST MASTER ,G.P.O., AURANGABAD, BIHAR 5. THE POST MASTER, PUNADIH (OBERA) DISTT- AURANGABAD 6. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA----- --------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 9 19.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present petitioner is the wife of late I. D. Mistry who retired from service of Bokaro Steel Limited. Her husband was subscriber to the EPF Account No. BR/2316/19376. By virtue of such subscription made by the husband of the present petitioner, the husband and after his death, the petitioner was entitled to family pension authorization in this regard by the Employees Provident Fund Authority. When the petitioner did not get her due from the local postal authority she filed the present writ application asserting her right for such payment. Only after the writ application was filed and the respondents who have been directed to file counter affidavit and explain the position, the respondent postal authority took steps of paying of the past dues as well as the current entitlement to the petitioner. Petitioner to that extent now has no grievance but there is one missing period for which the petitioner asserts her pension - 2 - has not yet been paid. The period pertains to 1.3.1996 to 31.3.1999. There is categorical assertion made by learned counsel for the petitioner, based on instruction, that this amount is still due and she is entitled to even this payment. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent postal authority, no doubt, the details of other payments have been indicated but they are silent with regard to the period from 1.3.1996 to 31.3.1999. The Court therefore granted time and indulgence to the respondent to either furnish evidence of payment to the petitioner or explain the situation before the claim of the petitioner could be dispelled. No affidavit or evidence has been brought on record which could form the basis of negating the claim of the petitioner. Looking at the way the payments have been made to the petitioner, the irregularity and delay between the authorization and payments, all is not well with the way the widow has been dealt with in the matter of payment of her family pension. In absence of any rebuttal, the Court disposes of the writ application with a direction upon the Director of Postal Accounts Patna, respondent no.3, that he shall take cognizance of the matter and ensure that the petitioner is paid the arrears of family pension for the period indicated in the earlier part of the order, in case they fail to produce the relevant vouchers as evidence of such payments to her. The Court expects that this exercise in this regard would be completed within three months from the date of communication or - 3 - production of a copy of this order. It is also clarified that the arrears of the family pension for the period noted above will carry the interest at the rate of Saving Account prevalent at the relevant time. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)