IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16356 of 2008 Smt.Sampatiya Devi, widow of late Daroga Rai Krishak, resident of Village Kheshrahiya, P.O. Sighara, Via-Mahua, District – Vaishali ………….. Applicant Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Postmaster General of India 2. The Senior Superintendent of Muzaffarpur Dn, Muzaffarpur 3. The Senior Superintendent of RMS “NB” Dn, Samastipur, Bihar ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, Mrs. Rashmi, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Singh, ASG Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, CGC ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. N. Singh ------ Dated, the 1st December, 2008. The counsel for the petitioner made two-fold submission namely, (one), that the petitioner’s husband remained under suspension for the period from 27th December, 1983 to 21st August, 1985 and from 1st October, 1985 until 5th May, 1986 but no subsistence allowance was paid to him and, (two), that the compassionate allowance payable to the petitioner’s husband under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 has wrongly been denied. The counsel would submit that petitioner’s husband Daroga Rai Krishak was mentally ill since 1983 and, he remained in mental hospital until his death and, therefore, the dismissal order dated 5th May, 1986 could not be challenged. - 2 - 2. We find that there is no contemporaneous document which can lead us to accept the case of the petitioner that her husband was mentally ill since 1983 until his death. 3. In so far as the finding of the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has categorically recorded that for want of any challenge to dismissal order, question of grant of compassionate allowance would not arise. We do not find any reason to take a view different from the Tribunal. In so far as claim of subsistence allowance is concerned, we asked the counsel for the petitioner to read the prayers made in the Original Application. It does not transpire that any specific prayer with regard to grant of subsistence allowance was made in the Original Application before the Tribunal. 4. The order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ J. N. Singh, J. Anil/