2025:JHHC:29680 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5470 of 2018 --------- Ahilya Devi, Aged about 70 years, wife of Late Ganesh Prasad Thakur, Resident of Main Road, Near Garege Chowk, Saraikela, District- Saraikela Kharsawan. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. Of Jharkhand at Project Bhawan P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Regional Deputy Director, Kolhan Division, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District - West Singhbhum. 5. The District Superintnedent of Education, Sarailella, P.O. & P.S. Saraikella, District-Saraikella-Kharsawan. 6. The Headmaster, Middle School, Pathanmara, P.O. Pathanmara, P.S. Saraikella, District-Saraikella-Kharsawan. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III --------- 09/Dated:-24.09.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to immediately and forthwith release the salary of petitioner’s deceased husband for the period from 03.12.1995 to 01.01.2003 which has not been paid. 3. The only grievance of the respondents is that since in the previous round of litigation, there was no specific direction for payment of salary of that period; as such, the same cannot be paid. 2025:JHHC:29680 2 4. After going through the records, it appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (S) No.20 of 2008, which was disposed of by directing the District Superintendent of Education to do the needful. For brevity, para-1 and para-5 is extracted hereinbelow: “Petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith release the entire retiral dues including the arrears of salary of the petitioner for the period from 3.12.1995 to 1.1.2003, the entire G.P.F. amount, the Gratuity amount, the leave encashment amount, the benefits of revised pay including the arrears of gratuity and leave encashment pursuant to the revised pay, the benefits of commutation of pension and the arrears of pension for the period from 2.1.2003 till date along with interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum. ..... ..... 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the District Superintendent of Education, Saraikella (respondent no. 4) is directed to take steps and to ensure that the retiral benefits, as indicated above, and pension amount which is legitimately due to the petitioner, is released without any further delay and the same is paid to the petitioner. This exercise must be undertaken and completed by the respondent no. 4 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. After going through the aforesaid order, it is clear that the original petitioner in that case, who was the erstwhile employee and the husband of the present petitioner, filed the writ application for release of entire retiral dues including arrear of salary and this Court had directed the District Superintendent of Education, Saraikella to take steps and ensure that the retiral benefits and pension amount which is legitimately due to the petitioner, shall be paid to him. 6. Admittedly, the word ‘salary’ is not reflecting in the operating portion of the order. However, this does not mean that the respondent would remain silent with regard to payment of salary for the period from 03.12.1995 to 01.01.2003. The 2025:JHHC:29680 3 respondents have also neither rejected the said claim by giving any cogent reason nor informed the petitioner so that the present petitioner could have got a chance to agitate the issue. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the 5th respondent to treat this writ application as representation and take a decision in the matter after verification of record of the erstwhile employee of which the present petitioner is widow and pay the admitted amount which is lying in their account and if as per the respondents there is no dues standing in the name of erstwhile employee, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 vikas/-