2026:JHHC:10778 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2048 of 2025 --------- Anupama Devi, aged about 70 years, wife late Biseshwar Nand Goswami, resident of Vikash Nagar, Bank More, Dhanbad, P.O.- Dhanbad, P.S.-Bank More (Dhanbad), District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand). ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Chief Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, having its office at Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad, P.O.+P.S.-Dhanbad. ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, A.C. to S.C.-V --------- 06/Dated:-15.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the 3rd respondent whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of family pension has been turned down by referring to Rule-4(i) of the Bihar Municipal Officer and Servant Pension Rules, 1987 holding that in the original service record of the petitioner’s husband namely late Bisheshwar Nand Goswami, there is no evidence as to whether he had opted for his contribution towards contributory provident fund which, as per the respondents, is an important qualification for grant of pension and since such evidence is not available on record, the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. 2026:JHHC:10778 2 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though her husband was getting pension from the date of retirement till his death on 02.10.2022, then there is no reason as to why the petitioner will not get family pension. 4. The case was heard on 7th April, 2026 wherein the grievance of the petitioner was indicated and the respondent counsel was allowed to rebut this point. For brevity, order dated 7th April, 2026 is extracted hereinbelow: “The husband of the petitioner was working with Dhanbad Municipal Corporation and he superannuated on 31.03.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that though her husband was getting full pension till his death i.e on 02.10.2022 but the petitioner who being the widow of the erstwhile employee did not get any family pension. Earlier, the petitioner moved before this Court by filing writ application being W.P.(S) No. 6587 of 2022 and the same was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent. Pursuant thereto when the order was not complied with, she was forced to file contempt application. However, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contends that from the date of retirement of her husband till his death i.e on 02.10.2022, he was regularly getting monthly pension but when the petitioner raised her grievance with regard to family pension they passed the impugned order by quoting Bihar Municipal Officers and Servant Pension Rules 1987 which is non est in the eye of law in the background that her husband was getting pension regularly. Learned counsel for the respondents prays and is allowed a short indulgence to rebut on this point after seeking instruction. Accordingly, list this case on 15.04.2026.” 5. Today, learned counsel for the respondents submits that due to paucity of fund, the respondents are not giving family pension to many dependents. 6. This cannot be any ground and there is no denial of the specific averment that the husband of the petitioner from the date of his retirement till his death on 02.10.2022 was getting full pension, but when the petitioner raised her grievance with regard to family pension, they have passed the impugned order. 7. Having regard to the factual scenario that husband of the petitioner, who was working with Dhanbad Municipal Corporation and superannuated on 31.03.2007 and started 2026:JHHC:10778 3 getting full pension till his death on 02.10.2022; this Court holds that the petitioner would be entitled for family pension and there cannot be any ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for paucity of fund. Further, this ground was also not taken in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application, is hereby, allowed and the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure-5) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to start current pension and pay the arrears of pension to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 9. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 15, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 22/04/2026