IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9954 of 2009 Mostt. Bachcha Devi, wife of Late Brahmdeo Choudhary, resident of Village-Govindpur, P.O. Laheriasarai, P.S. Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga. .....................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General (Administration)Bihar,Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General, Eastern Region,Bhagalpur. 5. The Inspector General of Rail Police, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintendent of Rail Police, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur. 8. The District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur. ----------- 2. 19. 08. 2009. As prayed for on behalf of the petitioner, District Provident Fund Officer, Bhagalpur is added as Respondent No. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondents- State. The grievance of the petitioner a widow of the concerned employee is that although Provident Fund dues were paid to her after the death of her husband who was removed from service in the year 1986 and later on he died in the year 1997. The petitioner approached this Court earlier vide C.W.J.C. No. 5354 of 2009 which was disposed of on 27th April, 2009 with a direction to Respondent No. 6 to take immediate steps with regard to the unpaid claim of the petitioner in the light of the order passed on her representation. She filed a representation as contained in Annexure-7 sstating that Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 17962/- was paid after sufficiently a long delay. The other grievances of the petitioner was that under the Provision of 46 of Bihar Pension Rules, the petitioner was entitled to - 2 - compassionate pension. The representation of the petitioner was considered and the same was disposed of as per order contained in Memo No. 1055, dated 09. 07. 2009 passed by Respondent No. 7. While disposing of the representation, it was taken note of the fact that the husband of the petitioner while a member of the Police Escort Party used to realise illegal money from the passengers and on being objected by Incharge of the Escort Party, he threatened him by his rifle. The petitioner was departmentally proceeded and on having found that the charges were grave and proved, husband of the petitioner was further found not fit to be retained in the police force, and as such, the services of the husband of the petitioner was terminated on 1st February, 1986, by removing him from the service. It is further recorded that after removal, the petitioner filed a representation after a long gap of twenty years i.e. on 17th August, 2006 for payment of retiral dues and on receiving such application, amount available in the Provident Fund Account of the husband of the petitioner was paid. The due amount of Group Insurance i.e. Rs. 22,704/- was also paid to the petitioner as per Bank Draft No. 312755 dated 05. 06. 2009. The Respondent No. 7 considering the request of the petitioner for payment of compassionate allowances as per Provision of 46 of Bihar Pension Rules, the same was rejected due to the reasons that the husband of the petitioner was not deserving for grant of compassionate allowances in absence of any special consideration since he was removed from service for serious misconduct also and finding the petitioner incompetent Police - 3 - Personnel not fit to continue in police force disentitling the Compassionate allowance as claimed, as such request of the petitioner was rejected by the aforesaid order. On perusal of the order as contained in Annexure-7/1 I find that the order is well considered and good reasons having assigned for refusing the claim for compassionate allowance under the Rule 46 of Bihar Pension Rules. The order does not suffer from any error. Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of submission submitted that the amount paid as aforesaid, did not carry the statutory interest to which she is entitled. Learned counsel for the State submits that in case, statutory interest has not been paid over the above amount, the grievance of the petitioner shall be considered. In the above circumstances, Respondent No. 7 shall verify as to whether any statutory interest is admissible over the amount paid to the petitioner and whether it was included in the aforesaid amount or not. In case, such statutory interest is admissible and not paid, the same may be paid as per law. As regards claim that Provident Fund dues has been paid by lesser amount ,it will be open to the petitioner to file a representation before Respondent No. 8 i.e. District Provident Officer, Bhagalpur. In case, such representation is filed along with relevant documents in support thereof as also certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks from today, Respondent No. 8 shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law - 4 - expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation, so that the grievance of the petitioner could be redressed without delay. With the above observations/directions, this writ application stands disposed of. m.p. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)