IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.235 of 2025 ====================================================== Satyendra Kumar son of Late Nathuni Singh R/O village- Lodipur, P.O and P.S.- Khizarsarai, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary Social Welfare Department/Branch to Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate and Collector, Gaya 4. The District Welfare Officer, Gaya, Welfare Branch. 5. The Accountant General (A and E) Bihar, Patna. 6. The Senior Account Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A and E) Bihar, Patna. 7. The Deputy Collector, District Establishment, Gaya District Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhirendra Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 18-08-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:- “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs/direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner all the retiral benefits/pension etc. of late Nathuni Singh Yadav (father of the petitioner) who was posted since 27.09.1951 as Clerk/Nazir in Gaya District Welfare Office at Gaya and retired on 31.12.1986 and then thereafter he became sick for a long time and after being cured he applied on 03.07.2007 to respondent no.3 for payment of pension/retiral benefits to him but he died on 29.07.2007, after death of Nathuni Singh, his wife Ram Rati Patna High Court CWJC No.235 of 2025(5) dt.18-08-2026 2/5 Devi applied for pension etc. to Respondent No.3 but she died on 10.09.2013 then the petitioner applied for pension etc. to respondent no.3 and he got succession certificate granted by the District Judge, Gaya it is remarkable that, “office of the Accountant General (A&E) Bihar, Patna sought explanation from District Establishment Deputy Collector, Gaya why after 24 years of retirement of Nathuni Singh Yadav, his service book and Form 4 were sent to his office (office of the Accountant General A & E Bihar, Patna).” 3. Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar informs that Pension Payment Order (PPO) has been issued on 04.11.2025 and the same was communicated to the petitioner, as well as, the Treasury Officer, Gaya. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents no.3, 4 and 7, duly sworn by the District Welfare Officer, Gaya, in which detail information has been given regarding payment to the petitioner under different heads in paragraphs no.5 and 6. 5. It is also admitted that the father of the petitioner has retried on 31.12.1986 and vide letter dated 04/2010, the office of the Accountant General asked from the District Establishment Deputy Collector, Gaya, as to why, after 24 years of retirement, service book of the said employee and Form-4 were sent to his office. It has been noticed that the respondent concerned had not taken any action for nearly 24 years which Patna High Court CWJC No.235 of 2025(5) dt.18-08-2026 3/5 has not only caused mental harassment to the petitioner but has also caused immense hardship to his family. The plea of paucity of funds would not disentitle the petitioner of his legitimate claim for interest on account of delayed payment. The petitioner is also required to be duly compensated for the said delay. It appears that steps were taken only after the death of the deceased employee, namely, Nathuni Singh, father of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner also died in the year 2013 without being granted family pension to her. 6. The respondents in a very casual and callous manner have shifted the entire responsibility on the deceased employee and her wife late Ram Rati Devi stating that the requisite documents were furnished only along with the prescribed form on 10.04.2017 by the petitioner. 7. However, considering that the application was submitted in the year 2017, a reminder was sent by the District Magistrate, Gaya to the Accountant General, Bihar to fix the pension/gratuity amount vide letter No.3609 dated 06.10.2025. Despite the aforesaid development, the petitioner submits that the entire amount of retiral dues payable to his father under different heads has still not been paid. The father of the petitioner had retired from the post of Clerk-cum-Nazir, Gaya Patna High Court CWJC No.235 of 2025(5) dt.18-08-2026 4/5 Welfare Office. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no alternative than to direct the District Magistrate, Gaya, to ensure payment of all remaining dues which have not been paid to the petitioner well within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. The plea that a criminal case had been instituted in the year 1987, subsequent to the retirement of the deceased employee, cannot absolve the erring respondent from compensating the heirs of the deceased employee. The petitioner, being the only biological son of the deceased employee, is entitled to receive the pensionary benefits which remained unpaid to his father during his lifetime. Upon the death of the deceased employee in the year 2007, his wife, i.e. the mother of the petitioner, became entitled to family pension, which also remained unpaid until her death in the year 2013. Accordingly, the entire amount payable towards pensionary and family pension benefits, after due calculation, shall be made to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 9. This Court was of the opinion to impose exemplary cost on the State Government and to compensate the petitioner from the concerned respondent for making delay in payment of pension but considering the request made by Shri Gyan Prakash Patna High Court CWJC No.235 of 2025(5) dt.18-08-2026 5/5 Ojha, learned State counsel, who submits that the authorities are under an obligation to redress the grievance of the petitioner and to make payment of pensionary benefits due to his father, who died in the year 2007, and thereafter the family pension due to his mother, who also died in the year 2013 without receiving the same, this Court refrains from imposing exemplary costs. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of. Sanjay/- (Purnendu Singh, J) U