Interruption in service does not necessarily lead to forfeiture of past service, and entitlement to post-retirement benefits should be determined based on qualifying service.

1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also after taking into account the facts and circumstances mentioned in this application seeking condonation of delay of a period of 521 days in filing of this appeal is condoned.

2. LA. No. 5004 of 2009 is accordingly disposed of. L.P.A. No. 1030 of 2009

3. Having condoned the delay, this Court with the consent of the parties has taken up the appeal on merits with a view to dispose of the same at the stage of admission itself.

4. By the impugned order dated 25.1.2008, the writ application filed by the respondent writ petitioner seeking relief for payment of post retirement benefit of her husband as also family pension to her has been allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by taking a plea that the aforesaid relief given to the writ petitioner despite an order of punishment passed against the husband of the respondent writ petitioner cannot be sustained in law specially when there was no specific prayer to that effect in the writ petition and as such the learned Single Judge was not justified in either quashing the same on her own while issuing a direction for payment of post retirement benefits including family pension to the respondent writ petitioner. In this context, reliance has also been placed by him on the provisions of Rule 103 of the Bihar Pension Rules as also a judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Izharul Haque vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2006(2) PLJR 112.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner on the other hand has submitted that there would be no dispute that the husband of the respondent writ petitioner holding the post of Assistant Engineer had retired on 1.12.1997 and in fact had also died on 27.5.1999 without there being any decision as with regard to the payment of his retirement benefits. Counsel therefore submits that the direction given for payment of post retirement benefits to the respondent writ petitioner, the wife of the deceased employee who had admittedly completed the qualifying period of service for earning pension in terms of Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) does not require any interference by this Court. He has also submitted that no flaw can be found in the order of learned Single Judge quashing such ex parte order of punishment passed in 2002 much after the death of the employee which was sought to be made the basis for denying post retirement benefit and family pension to the writ petitioner, the widow of the deceased employee.

7. Having given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions, we find that there is no merit in this appeal inasmuch as it is admitted that that the husband of the respondent writ petitioner was initially appointed in, the Government service on 20.11.1961 on the post of Assistant Engineer and after completing more than twelve years of service, he had proceeded on duly sanctioned leave for three days on 26.5.1974 on the ground of illness of his mother as is borne out from Annexure-3 to the writ application. It however appears that he did not report on duty on 31.5.1974 due to his serious mental and other ailments and he remained (sicabsent ?) from his duty till 13.10.1993. He had however submitted his . joining report on 14.10.1993 with the medical certificate but no order was thereon by the competent authority and he was kept waiting for his posting for a period of more than four years and in fact till he had attained the age of superannuation on 7.12.1997. It is also not in doubt that the appellants and/or controlling authorities of the husband of the respondent writ petitioner had passed no order of punishment till the date of his superannuation i.e. 1.12.1997 or till date of his death i.e. 27.5.1999. The appellants in fact seem to have woken up from their deep slumber when an order dated 11.8.2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 7409/2000 was passed by this Court in a writ pe