IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9082 of 2006 Manju Upadhyay, Wife of Late Ram Bachan Upadhyay Ex-Junior Engineer, Resident of 4/31 Shivpuri colony Katari Hill Road, Gaya. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Accountant General (A&E)-II, Bihar, Patna. 3. Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 7. Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Gaya. --------------- Respondents ----------- 2 14.05.2010 I.A. No. 7025 of 2009 This is an application for substitution of the sole petitioner who is said to have died on 17.12.2007 leaving behind her son and two daughters named in paragraph no.5. For the reasons mentioned in this application, the prayer made therein is allowed and the aforementioned persons named in paragraph no. 5 are directed to be substituted in place of writ petitioner whose name should be deleted. Office to make necessary correction in the cage column of the writ application. C.W.J.C. No. 9082 of 2006 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. 2 The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application praying for issuance of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order, or direction for quashing the letter No. 6825 dated 15/09/2005 (Annexure:-4) whereby and whereunder the Respondent Authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner for extension of the term of the Special Pension payable to the petitioner till enhanced date of superannuation i.e. till 31.03.2011 as the age of superannuation of the employees working under the Respondent State has been enhanced from 58 years to 60 years as per the new rule of the Finance Department of the Respondent- State as contained in Resolution No. 15001 dated 24/03/2005.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government in keeping with the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner had sanctioned special pension vide memo no. 1413 dated 6.4.2004 (Annexure-2) whereby and whereunder such special pension was payable to the petitioner, the widow, till date of retirement of her husband i.e. 31.3.2009. Counsel submits that this was passed at a point of time when the age of retirement was 58 years but on 24.3.2005, the State Government has 3 enhanced the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of special pension up to 31.3.2011 as her husband could have continued in service and could have retired only on 31.3.2011. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein in paragraph no.1, it has been stated that:- “11. That the statement made in paragraph no.12 of the writ application under reply it is stated that it is true that had the petitioner’s husband been alive today, he would have certainly enjoyed the period and superannuated on 31.3.2011. But it is necessary to mention here that the Resolution No. 1500(B)(2) dated 24.3.2005 of the Finance Department is only valid for those employee who are in service on that day.” This Court fails to understand as to how on the aforementioned ground the petitioner can be refused to be paid the benefit of special pension. No Government order can be issued while enhancing the age of retirement for any person receiving special pension. Such decision is always in respect of living employee. It is the scheme of special pension which enables the 4 dependant to get the said package of salary and emoluments of a deceased employee who dies while performing or in connection with official duty as was taken earlier in the case of the husband of the petitioner vide memo no. 1413 dated 6.4.2004. All that now therefore was required to be examined is as to whether the husband of the petitioner was to continue in service in terms of the Government Resolution dated 24.3.2005 enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years and it is so clear from the averments made in the order dated 6.4.2004 that such special pension was sanctioned up to the earlier date of retirement of the husband of the petitioner i.e. 31.3.2009, the respondents thus by way of logical corollary ought to have revised the order of special pension by extending it to the period of 31.3.2011. This Court in fact does not find any reason in the order dated 15.9.2005 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the period of such special pension and accordingly the same is quashed. In that view of the matter, this Court 5 would direct the Principal Secretary of the Finance Department to examine the grievance of the petitioner and take a firm decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department should also be under obligation to make immediate communication to the office of the Accountant General for extending the benefit of special pension to the petitioner up to the period of 31.3.2011. It is, however, made clear that as the widow of the deceased employee, the original petitioner of this case has already died on 17.12.2007, the admissibility of payment of amount of special pension would be strictly gone into in the light of the entitlement confined to only an unmarried daughter and that too only up to the age of 25 years. This Court, therefore, would not strictly decide the issue of payment of such amount of special pension but then the authority must take a decision as with regard to the enhancement of the period of special pension taking into consideration that the original employee was entitled to continue in service up 6 to 31.3.2011 and for such death on duty, his family members were sanctioned special pension. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)