Smt. Saraswati Devi v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ALOK SINGH
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 21
Judgment
Smt. Saraswati Devi ..... Petitioner Versus
Jharkhand State Electricity Board through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi 3. General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, J.S.E.B. 4. Pension Officer, J.S.E.B. …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate ----- 5 /12.10.2012 Petitioner's husband, Late Jagarnath Bhagat, stood retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30th September, 2004 from the post of Khalasi. He was being paid pension. However, his other retiral dues were withheld, without any sufficient reason, forcing him to file W.P.(S) No.6169 of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2006. Thereafter, all the retiral dues were paid to the husband of the petitioner. However, husband of the petitioner has expired on 21.06.2008. Petitioner, being widow, has applied for the family pension. Despite several visits, requests and representation, petitioner is not being paid family pension. Stoppage of pension or family pension, without there being any sufficient cause or reason, would mean leaving the retired government servant or family of the deceased government servant to die in starvation, therefore, such an action, on the part of the government machinery, would be in clearcut violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having considered entire materials available on the record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, I direct Respondent No.3 to personally look into the matter and to fix the family pension of the petitioner and to get it released in favour of the petitioner in any case within sixty days from the date, certified copy of this order is placed before him. R.K. (Alok Singh, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.