The court affirmed that a widow is entitled to full death-cum-retiral benefits and salary for the suspension period after revocation of suspension and dropping of criminal charges against her deceased husband.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to pay all the death-cum-retiral benefits including family pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment and all other admissible dues to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum, in view of the fact that the husband of the petitioner died on 27.08.2021 after his superannuation on 31.10.2016 from the post of Clerk, Government High School, Kharsidag, Namkum, Ranchi.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the part of order contained in memo No. 2648 dated 28.10.2016 (Clause-III thereof), whereby it has been decided that the period of suspension will not be counted for the purpose of any monetary benefits.

3. The case of petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Husband of petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Government High School, Kharsidag, Namkum, Ranchi. During his service period, an FIR was lodged under Section 302/34 IPC which was registered as Namkum P.S. Case No. 57/95, in which the husband of petitioner was arrested on 07.06.1995. On his arrest, the respondents vide order dated 15.07.1995 put him under suspension. Thereafter, the husband of petitioner remained suspended for a long period of time and just three days prior to his retirement suspension order was revoked vide order dated 28.10.2016. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retied on 31.10.2016 and subsequently died on 27.08.2021. Since her husband died on 27.08.2021, the criminal case pending against him also stood dropped. Thereafter, the wife (petitioner) has approached this Court getting the entire death-cum-retiral benefits as well as full salary of the suspended period.

4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that petitioner in the capacity of wife of late Jai Prakash Nayak is entitled for entire death-cum-retiral benefits as well as the full salary of the period of suspension of her husband since order of suspension has already been revoked vide order dated 28.10.2016. Learned counsel submits that part of the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 (Clause-III thereof) needs to be quashed and set aside as it talks of forfeiture of salary of the period of suspension. Learned counsel submits that delay was on the part of the respondents and as such, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment.

5. Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State by opposing contention of learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has approached this Court after a long dely. The order was passed on 28.10.2016 and this writ petition was filed in the year 2023. At the time of passing of the impugned order, the husband of petitioner was very much alive and was also aware of the order passed against him and therefore, the petitioner-wife is precluded from challenging the same since husband had accepted the said order and never aggrieved by the same, and as such not challenged the order dated 28.10.2016. Learned counsel submits that merely because the criminal case was dropped due to death of her husband, the petitioner is not entitled for full salary of the suspension period.

6. Having heard the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for entire benefits for the following facts and reasons:

(I) Vide order dated 28.10.2016, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked.

(II) After revocation of suspension, the respondents neither initiated any department proceeding nor passed any punishment order against the husband of petitioner.

(III) The criminal case, due to death of the petitioner, was also dropped vide order dated 24.06.2022 in Session Trail Case No. 467/1996 and as such, it can very comfortably be presumed that nothing was pending against the husband of the petitioner.

(IV) Admittedly, the petitioner (widow) is entitled for family pension. Only on the ground that husband of petitioner did not challenge the o