A pending recovery appeal cannot justify withholding a widow’s retiral dues and family pension.

The petitioner, widow of Late Uma Shankar Thakur, sought payment of pension and other retiral benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment and salary arrears.

Her husband, a Block Statistical Supervisor, died in harness on 29 October 2014; the judgment records that she was receiving provisional pension and gratuity.

A certificate proceeding had been initiated against him for alleged dues relating to paddy procurement.

In CWJC No. 4540 of 2023, the High Court set aside the certificate notice on 2 May 2024; the State’s appeal, LPA No. 662 of 2024, was pending.

The petitioner sought to make a representation to the Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, for consideration of her claims.

The judgment’s reference at paragraph 7 to the death date as 29 October 2024 is inconsistent with its repeated reference to 29 October 2014.

1. Whether the petitioner’s retiral dues and family pension could be withheld solely because the State’s appeal against the order quashing the certificate notice remained pending.

2. Whether the Director should consider the petitioner’s claims and take steps to secure payment of admissible benefits, subject to the outcome of the pending appeal.

The Court relied on the principle that a widow should not be penalized by withholding her deceased spouse’s retiral dues merely because litigation concerning recovery is pending; the benefits must be dealt with in accordance with law and may be made subject to the outcome of that litigation.

The judgment also recounted the prior order in CWJC No. 4540 of 2023, which relied on Lal Chand Panna Lal v. State of Bihar, 2007 (4) PLJR 590, and Prabhakar Tekriwal v. State of Bihar, 2024 (1) PLJR 622, concerning the limits of certificate proceedings and recovery of disputed or unascertained liabilities. That prior order referred to Section 11 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, and Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and quashed the certificate notice; the State’s appeal from that order remained pending.

Although the State argued that final pension and other benefits depended on the outcome of its pending LPA, the Court considered that the certificate notice had already been set aside and that the petitioner was the widow of an employee who died in harness.

It held that the pendency of the appeal did not justify continuing to withhold benefits otherwise due to her. The Court therefore directed the competent Director to obtain the service particulars, decide the claims in accordance with law, and process the family pension and retiral dues, while preserving the effect of the pending LPA.

The family-pension particulars were to be communicated to the Accountant General, Bihar, for issuance of the PPO. These directions were expressly made subject to the final outcome of LPA No. 662 of 2024.