1. Husband of the petitioner died on 23.4.1994. He was a Peon working under the respondent-Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board). He entered service initially on 12.6.1968 and was on the permanent establishment of the Board. During the period of service he has shouldered his responsibility with due diligence and there is nothing adverse in so far as service career is concerned. After the death of the husband of the petitioner when the widow lodged the claim for payment of retiral dues and family pension, the respondents refused to obliged. The reason for not sanctioning family pension was because it is the stand of the respondent-Board that there are large amount of unadjusted advance still lying in the records of the Board and till the same is reconciled, petitioner cannot be given the benefit of family pension. Though group insurance stands paid to her.

2. When the writ application was filed the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit was that an amount Rs. 1,76,519/- is outstanding as traveling allowance advance against the husband of the petitioner, which pertains to the year 1983 till 1992. In view of the same the Court in its order dated 6.2.2004 expressed certain surprise and directed the Board to file a supplementary affidavit and substantiate the stand.

3. A supplementary counter affidavit thereafter came to be filed, where certain vouchers have been annexed in support of the stand of the Board. Certain accounting seems to have been done by the authorities of the Board thereafter and the file stand was that now a sum of Rs. 79,098/- is outstanding against the deceased employee and this is the sum, which the Board is entitled to recover from the petitioner from her family pension.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that on the face of it the stand or the response of the Board is arbitrary. The outstanding dues shown against the husband of the petitioner in the year 1983 to 1992, why no effort was made on their part to do the needful accounting or adjustments during the lifetime of the husband is not explained. She herself expresses helplessness which have been brought on record because she has absolutely no way of knowing the state of affairs either of the Board or of the husband. Not only this the action of the respondents are further challenged on the ground of some decisions rendered in the similar circumstances. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in the case of Radha Jha vs. State of Bihar, 2003(1) PLJR 679, where certain recoveries were sought to be made by the State Government from the widow of the deceased employee. After considering the matrix of facts, the Court came to a considered opinion that since no proceeding was initiated during the lifetime of the employee, it was not open to the State Government to effect recoveries from the family pension and and other dues of the Government servant after his death.

5. Similar view was also expressed in the case of Smt. Shanti Choubey vs. State of Bihar, 2004(4) PLJR 236. Emphasis is on Paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment:

"11. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the State. In view of the law settled that recovery is not permissible even afle the retirement of a Government servant from service except after taking recourse to the provisions, contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and that too only if the case is covered by the rider clause of the said provision, which provides that (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government; (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings.

12. In the present case, obviously the periods in question relate to the years