Patna High CourtL.P.A/377/2017dismissed

Meenakshi Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-01-03The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.377 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1608 of 2015 ====================================================== Meenakshi Kumari, daughter of Hari Nandan Yadav and Late Geeta Kumari Resident of Village-Pipra, Police Station-Banmankhi, Block-Banmankhi, District-Purnea.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department, of Human Resource and Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Middle Education, Department of Human Resource and Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.

4. The Collector, Purnea.

5. The District Education, Officer, Purnea.

6. The Block Education Officer, Block-Banmankhi, Purnea.

7. The Accountant General, Bihar.

8. Hari Nandan Yadav Son of Baldeo Yadav

9. Manoj Kumar Nirala, Son of Hari Nandan Yadav

10. Trilok Kumar, Son of Hari Nandan Yadav

11. Rupam Devi, daughter of hari Nandan Yadav

12. Kanchan Devi, daughter of Hari Nandan Yadav, Respondents No. 8 to 12 all residents of Village-Pipra, Police StationBanmankhi, Block-Banmankhi, District-Purnea. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Madhu Prasun, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey- AAG 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 03-01-2018 Re.: Interlocutory Application No.1419 of 2017 Delay of 51 days in filing of the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of.

Patna High Court LPA No.377 of 2017 dt.03-01-2018 2/2 Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.

Family pension to the appellant has been denied in view of the fact that the appellant does not fall in the category of a family member as detailed in Clause7 (ii) of the Scheme referred to by the learned Writ Court in para 6 of the judgment. Appellant is a major married daughter and, therefore, in rejecting the family pension to her based on the aforesaid consideration, the learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting reconsideration. The appeal stands dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Sunil/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.01.2018 Transmission Date