IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 8556/2007) 1. Most. Sunaina Devi W/O Late Lakshmi Thakur R/O Vill.- Chamarhara, P.O.- Mahnar Road (Near Railway Station), Pin Code- 844507, P.S.- Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali, State- Bihar 2. Bikram Kumar Thakur Minor S/O Late Lakshmi Thakur, At Present Under The Guardianship Of Her Mother Namely Mostt. Sunaina Devi (The Petitioner-Appellant No.1) Who Is His Well Wisher And Next Friend, R/O Vill.- Chamarhara, P.O.- Mahnar Road (Near Railway Station), Pin Code- 844507, P.S.- Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali, State- Bihar … Appellants. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Commissioner-Cum- Secretary Home Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. Home Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Home Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. Director General Of Police And Inspector General Of Police Bihar, Patna 4. Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Munger 5. Superintendent Of Police, Sheikhpura, Distt.- Sheikhpura 6. Sudhir Kumar Thakur S/O Late Lakshmi Thakur R/O Vill.- Chamarhara, P.O.- Mahnar Road (Near Railway Station), Pin Code No. 844507, P.S.- Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali, State- Bihar And At Present Posted As The District Police/ District Constable In The District Police Force, Sheikhpura, Police/ Constable No. 283 At The Official Residence Of Superintendent Of Police, Sheikhpura, Post Office/Police Station And Distt.- Sheikhpura, State- Bihar ….. Respondents. ---------------------------------- 6. 02.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State and perused the order of the writ Court whereby writ petition preferred by the appellant in the year 2007 has been dismissed after detailed and elaborate discussion of all the relevant facts. The husband of appellant no.1 and father of 2 appellant no.2 died in service on 29th April 1999. The respondent no.6 is also son of deceased employee but from an earlier wife who was already dead. After the death of the employee, as is apparent from the discussions made by the writ court, there was an agreement between the family members and as a result the retrial benefits and the family pension was given to the appellants and the respondent no.6 got compassionate appointment as a constable in Police Department. From the discussions made by the writ Court it appears that the division of the property was also effective by the parties and some cash investment was required to be made by the respondent no.6 to meet various obligations of past . The prayer of the appellants was/is that the amount of advance taken by the employee before his death was adjusted from his retiral benefits payable to the appellant no.1 and that amount should be borne by the respondent no.6 and for that an appropriate writ/direction be issued. The fact that such recovery was challenged by the appellant no.1 without any success and that the writ petition was dismissed in 2002 and the Division Bench 3 also dismissed the appeal were concealed and no specific averment to that effect was made in the writ petition, except some reference to this fact in Annexure-3. In our considered view, when the retrial benefit and family pension was allocated to the share of appellantno.1, the advance which required adjustment from the retrial benefits was rightly adjusted from the amount payable to the appellant no.1. Since the respondent no.6 did not get share in the retrial benefits, it would not be proper to make him liable to pay the advance taken by the deceased employee and already adjusted from the dues. The other prayer of the appellant is that some amount, such as, 1/3rd or 1/6th of the salary being paid to respondent no.6 should be paid to the petitioners in lieu of maintaining the dependents of the deceased employee. In our considered view, such claim raised in the year 2007 indicates only deterioration in the relationship at a later stage. Already there was family arrangement to meet other liabilities. The appellant no.1 has several sons and daughters to support her and her one minor son, appellant no.2. They are also in receipt of family pension to support 4 themselves. The aforesaid claim was never made before the state authorities. Such a claim made directly through writ petition has been rightly rejected by the writ court. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)