Patna High Court
Vina DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The order dated 31‑08‑2024 passed by the District Service Grievance Redressal Officer is set aside as being beyond its jurisdiction.
Summary
Vina Devi, the second wife of a deceased government employee, filed a writ petition seeking the quash of an order dated 31‑08‑2024 issued by the District Service Grievance Redressal Officer that rejected her claim to family pension. She argued that she was named as nominee in the pension records and that the officer lacked jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Radha Devi v. Chief General Manager (2024). The State conceded the factual background but maintained that the grievance officer was not the competent authority. The Patna High Court held that the order was arbitrary and illegal, set it aside, and directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the District Education Officer within four weeks, with the pension claim to be decided within eight weeks. The writ petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Service Grievance Redressal Officer had jurisdiction to reject the family pension claim of the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner, as the second wife and nominated nominee, is entitled to family pension under the applicable service rules.
- Whether the order dated 31‑08‑2024 is violative of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Radha Devi v. Chief General Manager.
Subjects
- family pension
- second wife
- jurisdiction
- grievance redressal
- service law
- pension entitlement
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.483 of 2025
======================================================
Vina Devi Wife of Late Raghunath Rai, Resident of Village- Diwantok, P.O.-
Ratnakar, P.S.- Ganga Bridge, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, District- Vaishali at Hajipur.
3. The District Education Officer, District- Vaishali at Hajipur.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), District- Vaishali at
Hajipur.
5. The District Service Grievance Redressal Officer, District- Vaishali at
Hajipur.
6. The Treasury Officer, District- Vaishali at Hajipur.
7. The Accountant General (A and E), Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. V. S. Rajendra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG3
For the AG : Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 18-04-2026 The writ petition has been filed for the following
relief;
“a) To quash order dated 31.08.2024
passed in Complaint No. 7170120062411307 by
the Respondent No. 5 whereby and whereunder
the claim of the family pension of the Petitioner
has been rejected in a most arbitrary and illegal
manner.
b) For a direction upon the
Patna High Court CWJC No.483 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026
2/4
Respondent Authorities to sanction and make
payment of family pension along with arrears to
the of family pension, Petitioner, forthwith
without any further delay.
c) To pass any other order/orders in
shape of a consequential relief to which the
Petitioner may be found to be legally entitled to
in the facts and circumstances of the instant case
at hand.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the second
wife of the deceased employee. The first wife had deserted the
petitioner’s husband, and thereafter, a second marriage was
contracted. It is further submitted that in the pension papers and
service records, the petitioner’s name appears as a nominee and
has also been shown as the wife of the deceased employee.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
application with regard to grant of pension was made before the
respondent no.4 seeking disbursal of family pension at the
earliest. However, the respondent authorities failed to take any
steps to redress the grievance of the petitioner and sat tight over
the matter.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint under
the Bihar Government Servant Grievances Redressal Rules,
2019, bearing Complaint No. 7170120062411307, and, by
referring to Annexure P/7 dated 31.08.2024, submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.483 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026
3/4
Respondent No. 5 has passed an order, although he is not the
competent authority to address the issue, whereby the
petitioner’s claim has been rejected, contrary to the issues
having been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Radha Devi Vs. Chief General Manager & Ors. passed on 26th
July, 2024 in SLP (C) No. 2365 of 2022.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the State does not
dispute the factual position so far the jurisdiction of the
authority, who is said to have passed the order contained in
Annexure P/7. However, it has been submitted that appropriate
directions may be issued to the District Education Officer to
take final decision in respect of the claim of the petitioner by
framing a time line.
6. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds it
appropriate to set aside the order dated 31.08.2024, which is
said to have been passed by the District Service Grievance
Redressal Officer. However the petitioner is directed to file a
fresh representation before the District Education Officer,
Vaishali at Hajipur with all supportive materials and, as also, the
judgments, which he proposes to rely within a period of four
weeks from today.
It is expected that, after verification, the petitioner’s
Patna High Court CWJC No.483 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026
4/4
claim with reference to the nomination made in the pension
papers, as well as her status as the wife of the deceased
employee, shall be adjudicated within a period of eight weeks
from the date of filing of the representation. Needless to say, if
the first wife is surviving or any surviving interest is required to
be adjusted, necessary orders shall be passed with regard to the
petitioner’s entitlement for the grant of appropriate pensionary
benefits to which the petitioner is entitled.
9. With the aforementioned observation and direction,
the writ petition is disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U
Checking your session…