Sonapari Devi v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4892 of 2018 ====================================================== Sonapari Devi Wife of late Suresh Mahto Resident of Village- Aunta Kali Asthan, Police Station- Mokama Ghat, District- Patna ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India .

2. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur.

3. The Commandant, 133 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Dhurwa, Ranchi( Jharkhand) ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv.

For the UOI :

M/s Awadhesh Kumar Pandey & R.K. Sharan, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 5 03-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. Petitioner is the wife of late Suresh Mahto, who was appointed as Water Carrier in the Central Reserve Police Force on 14.06.1974. On 06.01.2009 the petitioner's husband was dismissed from service as he had shown incorrect date of birth which was challenged in the earlier round of litigation in writ application, being C.W.J.C. No. 1740 of 2010, disposed of on 23.02.

2010 with an observation that the petitioner's husband would avail the remedy of revision before the Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, who would consider the misdemeanour of furnishing incorrect certificate by the petitioner leniently and allow him to continue in the force until he attains the age of superannuation on the basis of his date of birth. A sanha has been lodged by the petitioner stating therein that from 11.04.2010 her husband is traceless and, thus, no revision was preferred by the petitioner's husband.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4892 of 2018(5) dt.03-01-2019 2/2 In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for post retiral benefits of her husband, who could not prefer revision at any point of time, in spite of opportunity granted to the petitioner to move the Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, by way of revision as directed and granted by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioner being the wife of the retired employee is granted liberty to prefer revision before the Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, on behalf of the traceless employee stating all facts.

The same will be considered leniently by the Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, considering the observation by this Court in the earlier writ application and would also take a lenient view regarding delay in filing the revision. It is expected that the revision, if filed by the petitioner, would be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of its filing. The present writ application is disposed off, accordingly.