PURNENDU SINGH, J.:–Heard Mr. Bajrangi Lal, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned SC-25 assisted by Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, learned AC to SC-25 for the State and Mr. Ram Yash Singh, learned counsel for the Accountant General.

2. Let the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf respondent nos. 1 to 3 be kept on record.

3. In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2023, statements made in Paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the supplementary counter affidavit which are, inter alia, reproduced as follows:—

“6. That in continuation of and in furtherance to the statement made in the counter affidavit it is most humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of dearness allowance over the family pension she receives on account of the death of her husband.

7. That by order dated 03.04.23, this Hon’ble Court had been pleased to allow the request of the Respondents to appraise the Hon’ble Court with regard to the clarification which has been sought for from the Finance Department as to whether Circular No. 3556 dated 09.05.1991 must be strictly followed and its subsequent amendment will have its effect only from the date of its amendment or from the year, 1991.

9. That on careful consideration of the facts of the case, the Finance Department has opined that the amendment of Rule 186 (3) in the Bihar Pension Rules shall be effective with immediate effects from the dated on notification i.e. 23/02/2016 and by that cause alone, it cannot be deemed to be effective from retrospective effect.

10. That Regardless, the Finance Department has further opined that the restriction of payment of dearness allowance to dependent of deceased employee who has been appointed on compassionate appointment is operative since long by virtue of Finance Department Circular No. 3556 dated 09.05.1991 which has also been confirmed by Letter No. 978 dated 04.03.2004.

11. That the Finance Department has further opined that the Finance Department Letter No. 537 dated 04.02.2002 is fundamentally different to the extent that the Dearness Allowance over the family pension of a deceased employee is payable to the dependent who has been independently employed.”

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Circular No. 3556 dated 09.05.1991, confirmed by Letter No. 978 dated 04.03.2004 was subject matter of the C.W.J.C. No. 2434 of 2002. The claim was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the writ petitioner had preferred L.P.A. No. 717 of 2002. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the respondents to make payment of “dearness allowance” on the amount of family pension to the appellant of the said case. The Hon’ble Division Bench has further clarified that Circular dated 09.05.1991 refers to an employment and reemployment occasioned due to death of employee, but does not cover a case where a person getting family pension has already been employed independently at the time of such eventuality. In such cases, dearness allowance is payable on family pension. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 9 which are relevant to decide the present case are, inter alia, reproduced hereunder:—

“4. The question in this case lies in a narrow compass. The appellant is in government service. Her husband was also in government service. After the death of her husband, she was getting family pension. The only controversy is as to whether on family pension she is entitled to dearness allowance or not. The learned Single Judge rejected the said prayer relying upon the circular of the State Government dated 9.5.1991 wherein paragraph 2 thereof provides inter alia that dearness allowance on the family pension shall be denied to a person if he has been reemployed or employed in State Government service or Central Government Service or its department etc.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted t