IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1482 of 2005 PRABHAWATI DEVI W/O LATE MANAGER MAHTO( ORDERLY PEON GOPESHWAR COLLEGE HATHWA IN JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY CHAPRA) R/O VILLAGE MANI CHHAPAR (UTTAR TOLA) PO- & PS-HATHWA DISTT- GOPALGANJ--PETITIONER Versus 1. THE JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY CHAPRA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR (J.P.U) DAK BUNGLOW ROAD CHAPRA DISTT- SARAN 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, J.P. UNIVERSITY, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD CHAPRA 3. THE PRINCIPAL-CUM-PROFESSOR INCHARGE, GOPESHWAR COLLEGE, HATHWA, UNDER J.P.UNIVERSITY,CHAPRA 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA--- ----------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 8 3.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is wife of one late Manager Mahto who was supposed to be working as Orderly Peon in Gopeshwar College Hathwa which falls under Jai Prakash Universisty. By way of the present writ application the petitioner is seeking grant of family pension etc. to her under the following facts. Manager Mahto, no doubt, was appointed on a Class IV post in Gopeshwar College but it was not a substantive appointment. Efforts by similarly situated employees including the husband of the petitioner to get regularization failed which forced the hands of the employees including Manager Mahto to approach the High Court by filing CWJC No. 7388 of 1994. Learned Single Judge vide his order dated 15th July, 1997 was of the opinion that the case of the petitioners was covered by the ratio or decision rendered in the case of Braj Kishore Singh & others versus State of Bihar and others reported in 1997 (1) PLJR-509. Order was passed to regularize the service of petitioner after - 2 - quashing the refusal order of the State Government. After passing of the order in the writ application violation of the same was complained of and a contempt application, namely, MJC No. 2019 of 1998 came to be filed. Taking into consideration the order dated 10.7.1998 the Registrar of the University admittedly issued an office order dated 16th July, 1998 which is annexure-3 to the writ application and order for regularization with regard to 12 Class IV employees of the College in question subject to approval and creation of the posts by the State Government was issued. Petitioner’s husband name figured in the same list at serial no. 6. The order categorically records that the husband of the petitioner died on 25.2.97. These basic facts are not under dispute. However, learned counsel representing J.P. University submits that the fact speaks for this and the petitioner is not entitled to for any relief. He points out that the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.7.97 was passed when the husband of the petitioner already died on 25.2.97. Since no steps for his substitution was taken to bring on record the legal heirs of Manager Mahto, the writ, in question, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, had abated Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position whether this was done for a purpose or over sight. The reason may not be necessary but the effect of the death of the husband of the petitioner cannot be ignored by this Court. Other submission on behalf of the respondent is that the benefit of - 3 - pension can only accrue provided the employee in question had completed minimum qualifying service of ten years. Even if the first objection is ignored the regularization order is dated 16.7.98 and the husband of the petitioner died on 25.2.97 itself. Therefore there is no occasion to consider grant of family pension or any retiral dues to the present petitioner. It is categorical statement made by the respondent that qualifying service is always calculated from the date of regularization and the earlier service rendered in whatever the capacity in the Constitute Colleges has no meaning. The facts being what they are this Court is in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that it is not a case where any direction can be issued upon the respondent authority to grant family pension to the petitioner. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)