Retiral benefits are constitutional rights that cannot be denied without due process, and unproven allegations of forgery do not justify withholding such benefits.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to extend the entire retiral benefits, including gratuity, GPF, GIS, leave encashment, arrear of pension from 01.02.2015 to 26.05.2021 etc. which accrued to her on account of superannuation of her husband on 31.01.2015 from the post of Assistant Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Deori in the district of Giridih. Further prayer has been made to fix and extend the family pension to the petitioner with effect from 27.05.2021. The petitioner has also prayed for interest on the delayed payment of entire retiral benefits, including pension and family pension to the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.10.1980 and after rendering a long satisfactory service, he superannuated on 31.01.2015. After retirement, an FIR, being Deori P.S. Case No. 4 of 2017 was lodged against the petitioner on 05.01.2017 alleging inter alia that the husband of the petitioner got appointment on the basis of forged certificates and misappropriated the Government fund. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner died on 26.05.2021. Till date, not a single penny has been given to the petitioner on account of retiral benefits, though the petitioner has been making several representations to the respondent-authorities and hence, with these compelling circumstances, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that non-payment of entire retiral benefits which have accrued to the petitioner upon superannuation of her husband after rendering almost 34 years of satisfactory service including family pension is only on the ground of pendency of criminal case. Learned counsel submits that after retirement of the husband of the petitioner, the said criminal case was lodged on the direction of the respondent-Authority. Learned counsel submits that the respondent-authority conducted the enquiry behind back of the petitioner’s husband. It is further submitted that the respondents have neither conducted any enquiry regarding the genuineness of the testimonials of petitioner’s husband nor found any illegality in his appointment or quality of education imparted by him and after retirement when it was duty bound to the respondent-authorities to distribute him the hard earned money by way of pensionery benefits, they are raking up the illegality / irregularity in the appointment of the husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that without initiating a departmental proceeding regarding forgery in getting appointment and only by lodging the criminal case, which now abates, the petitioner cannot be debarred from getting her right for payment of entire pensionery benefits, including family pension. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., reported in 2013 (3) JLJR 537. Learned counsel also submits that there is huge delay in making the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner at the hands of the respondents and as such, the petitioner may be compensated by way of interest for settling the culpable delay and disbursement thereof.

5. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents has taken a very short point to controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that upon verification report received from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna vide letter dated 20.09.2015, it has been found that the certificates and testimonials of the petitioner were forged and fabricated. Since the very appointment of the husband of the petitioner was found to be illegal based on forged documents, he is not entitled to any retiral benefits and the petitioner is also not entitled for family pension. Learned counsel further submits tha