Jharkhand High Court
The Union Of India Through The Director ... vs Smt. Bindheshwari Mishra on 14 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 298 of 2024
1. The Union of India through the Director General, C.R.P.F., CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi officiating from CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, P.O. Lodhi road, P.S. Lodhi Road, District- New Delhi:
2. The Director General, C.R.P.F., CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi officiating from CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S.
Lodhi Road, District- New Delhi:
3. The Inspector General, North Eastern Sector, C.R.P.F., Shillong,
Meghalaya officiating from Shillong, P.O. Shillong, P.S. Shillong,
District- Shillong, Meghalaya;
4. The Deputy Inspector General, Group Centre, C.R.P.F, Guwahati,
Officiating from Guwahati, P.O. and P.S. Guwahati, District-
Guwahati, Meghalaya;
5. The Commandant, 53 Batallion, BN, CRPF, Baramulla (J&K), C/o-
56 A.P.O officiating from Baramulla, P.O. & P.S. Baramulla,
District- Baramulla, Jammu and Kashmir;
6. The Deputy Director (Accounts), Central Pension, Accounting
Officer, Mahabir Nagar, New Delhi officiating from Mahabir Nagar,
P.O. Mahabir Nagar, P.S. Mahbir Nagar, District- New Delhi.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Smt. Bindheshwari Mishra, widow of Late Captain Ravindra Nath
Mishra, Residing at Quarter No. A-2/83 (T-Dhurwa), P.O. Dhurwa,
P.S. Hatia, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Petitioner/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, C.G.C.
For the Respondent: Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 09.10.2025 Pronounced on: 14/10/2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.
1. We would preface this judgment by quoting the well-known words of Justice Brennan, Page 1 of 15 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB "Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brooding sense of injustice. Illness we can put up with. But injustice makes us want to pull things down. When only the rich can enjoy the law, as a doubtful luxury, and the poor, who need it most, cannot have it because its expense puts it beyond their reach, the threat to the continued existence of free democracy is not imaginary but very real, because democracy's very life depends upon making the machinery of justice so effective that every citizen shall believe in and benefit by its impartiality and fairness."
2. This case has a chequered history.
3. The parties herein shall be referred to as they were before the learned Writ Court.
4. The petitioner was legally married to late Captain Ravindra Nath Mishra in 1977 and had been residing with the in-laws in Ranchi from the date of her marriage since the deceased husband was in the service of Army.
5. Late Captain Ravindra Nath Mishra was appointed on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Company Commander/Quarter Master) in Central Reserve Police Force on probation for two years in the pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000 (which was revised to Rs.8000-275-13500), by letter dated 22.12.1992.
6. After being relieved from Geological Survey of India, late Captain Ravindra Nath Mishra joined on the post of Deputy Page 2 of 15 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB Superintendent of Police (Company Commander/Quarter Master) in Central Reserve Police Force on 31.03.1993.
7. After joining the aforesaid post in Central Reserve Police Force, late Captain Ravindra Nath Mishra was given the basic pay of Rs.2200/- only and as such, he claimed an advance increment for each completed year of service on account of nine years of service in Army as well as two-and-a-half years in Geological Survey of India. He also claimed Rs.100/- per month on account of SDA amount. He also claimed another annual increment under Special Personnel Pay as he had underwent an operation of Vasectomy.
8. While deployed at A/53 BN, CRPF at Amguri, Bagalgaon (Assam), the deceased husband of the petitioner, Late Captain Ravindra Nath Mishra, was shot dead by firing on 04.03.1995 while sitting in his office and doing work.
9. After the death of Late Captain Ravindra Nath Mishra, the pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.470/- per month from 05.03.1995 by Order No.4 dated 16.01.1996.
10. Being aggrieved by fixation of family pension @ Rs.470/- per month only, the petitioner filed several representations.
11. The petitioner received a letter contained in Memo No.53 dated 15.08.1997 with regard to her family pension wherein she was informed that the cause of death of her husband appeared to be due to personal enmity and enquiry was being made at departmental level and a case is also pending in the Court. She was further informed that the pension Page 3 of 15 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB has been fixed at Rs.470/- per month and Rs.16,920/- has been released as DCRG and a direction has been issued to deposit the same in the State Bank of India, Hanuman Nagar Branch, Patna.
12. The petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of fixation of her family pension @ Rs. 470/per month since she was entitled for fixation of her family pension under the Liberalized Pensionary Award (LPA) scheme and on the basis of the last pay scale for which her deceased husband was entitled for i.e. the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-4000 and as such her family pension ought to have been fixed at Rs. 3250/- per month since her deceased husband had served for nine years in the Army and two years in the Geological Survey of India before joining in Central Reserve Police Force. Moreover, her husband was killed in office while performing his official duties.
13. When no action was taken on her several representations, having no other option, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 3041 of 1999 (R) before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench for a direction to the respondents to consider her case for fixation of her family pension on the pay which her husband was drawing and further for quashing the letter dated 15.08.1997 by which her family pension was fixed at Rs.470/-per month only.
14. The High Court disposed of said writ petition by an order dated 18.07.2000 with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director General, CRPF who was directed to dispose of the same by a speaking order within six weeks from the date of filing of the Page 4 of 15 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB representation. It was also observed that pursuant thereto, if the claim of the petitioner was found to be genuine, appropriate order must be passed forthwith without any further delay.
15. In pursuance to the order dated 18.07.2000 passed in CWJC No.3041 of 1999(R), the petitioner filed a detailed representation before the Director General, CRPF on 05.08.2000.
16. The petitioner was issued a Sanction Order dated 08.09.2000 whereby her pension was fixed at Rs.1410 (pre-revised) with effect from 05.03.1995 to 24.09.2011 (i.e. till her youngest child/son Master Sumeet Mishra attains the age of 25 years whose date of birth is 25.09.1986). Thereafter she would draw the said pension @ Rs. 940/- (pre-revised) with effect from 25.09.2011 till her death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier.
17. It was clearly stated in the Sanction order dated 08.09.2000 (Annexure-5) that Late Captain Ravindra Nath Mishra was killed on 04.03.1995 by a Constable of the Unit while he was discharging his official duties in office and as such, he was in active government duty.
18. However, the family pension of the petitioner was not fixed under the Liberalized Pensionary Award (LPA) scheme, though her husband was killed while on duty.
19. The petitioner was not paid a single farthing towards her family pension and as such she again moved before this Court in W.P. (S) No.1363 of 2003 for a direction to the respondents to consider her case for fixation of her family pension on the pay which her deceased Page 5 of 15 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB husband was drawing on the date of his death instead of Rs.940/- (pre- revised) and for a further direction to pay her family pension from the State Bank of India, Hanuman Nagar Branch, Patna where she had her account along with 18% interest.
20. The respondents filed a counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit in W.P. (S) No.1363 of 2003 bringing on record the Liberalized Pensionary Awards in the case of death/disability as contained in O.M. No. 33/5/89-P & P.W. (K) dated 09.04.1990.
21. The learned Single Judge of this Court after taking into consideration the relevant rules allowed the writ petition by an order dated 19.12.2008.
22. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants preferred L.P.A. No.383 of 2009 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2010.
23. Despite the aforesaid orders, the appellants still did not choose to pay family pension with interest to the petitioner and, rather, issued office order dated 17.11.2011 stating that the petitioner has not been found to be eligible for the Liberalized Pensionary Award but eligible only for the grant of EOPF as the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Liberalized Pensionary Award, thereby driving the petitioner to initiate yet another round to litigation and compelling her to approach this Court by filing W.P. (S) No.1732 of 2014, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 08.01.2024 mainly on the ground that the issue in question regarding the petitioner Page 6 of 15 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB being entitled to LPA (Liberalized Pensionary Award) had already been decided in the earlier round of litigation.
24. Undeterred, the appellants have filed the instant appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the relevant Para-3(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 in its right perspective and thereby reached a wrong conclusion. Findings of this Court
25. The contention raised by the appellants is not at all tenable in the eyes of law, given the fact that this issue already stands concluded in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P. (S) No. 1363 of 2003 which was allowed on 19.12.2008 by observing as under:-
"The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for fixation of family pension on the pay, which her deceased husband was entitled to on the date of his death and for fixation of pay scale of Captain Ravindra Nath Mishra on the date of his death and for further granting family pension, as permissible to the petitioner instead of Rs.940/- per month and for further direction to the respondents to pay the said family pension in accounts existed in S.B.I., Hanuman Nagar, Patna and also for arrears of family pension with 18% interest per annum thereon with increment and compensation.
The short point in issue is with regard to interpretation of Liberalized Pensionary Awards in the case of death/disability, which was issued by the Government of India's Notification O.N., No.33/5/89-P. & P.W. (K) dated the 9th April, 1990. Page 7 of 15
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB The respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit have annexed the said Government of India's Notification as Annexure-B (page-7) and their objection to the claim in the writ petition is that as per Rules 2 & 3, which provide for applicability and scope of liberalized pension, the petitioner is not entitled for the same and this is the sole ground, which they have stated in the counter affidavit, on which they have refused the claim of the petitioner. Rules 2, 3 and 4 are quoted as under-
"2. Applicability:
(1) These orders apply to all Civilian Central Government servants, who are governed by the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. (2) These orders also apply to Civilian Central Government servants governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, subject to certain adjustments being made as provided in paragraph 9.
3. Scope:
(1) These orders apply to Government servants killed or disabled-
(a) as a result of action in international wars;
(b) as a result of fighting in war-like operations or border skirmishes with any country,
(c) While fighting against armed hostiles,
(d) During laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also mines sweeping operations between one month before the commencement and three months after the conclusion of the operations:
Page 8 of 15
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB
(e) as a result of attack by extremists, antisocial elements, etc. or during action against dacoits, smugglers, hostiles, etc.
4. Benefit to the family in the event of the Death of the Government Servant.
(i) If the government servant survived by the widow she will be entitled to family pension equal to the pay last drawn by the deceased Government servant. The said family pension shall be admissible to her for life or until her remarriage.
(ii) In the event of remarriage of the widow family pension will be allowed at the rates of family pension and subject to the conditions laid down for family pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, from the date following the date of her remarriage.
(iii) If the Government servant is not survived by widow but is survived by child/children only, all children together shall be eligible for family pension at the following rates:-
Basic pay of Government monthly pension servant on the date of death.
(i) Not exceeding Rs 50% of basic pay
1500/-
(ii) Exceeding 40% of basic pay subject to
Rs.1500/- but not a minimum of Rs.750/-
exceeding
Rs.3000/-
(iii) Exceeding Rs. 30% of basic pay subject to
3000/- a minimum of Rs. 1200/-
and maximum of Rs.2500/-
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the basic requirement to apply the provision is that one has to be Civilian Central Government Servant and the scope is applicable only to such Civilian Government Servants, who are killed or disabled on duty and thus, this will not apply in the case of the petitioner for the sole reason that he was an Armed Personnel in C.R.P.F. Page 9 of 15 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB I have perused Rule 4, which provides the benefits to the family in the event of death of the Government Servant, which is a general and inclusive provision and the same will certainly include the case of a Government servant, survived by a widow to be entitled for family pension, in case the government servant dies while on duty.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the family pension to the petitioner as permissible in accordance with law. The respondents will also consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of Interest in accordance with law.
However, there will be no order as to cost."
26. As mentioned above, the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court was assailed by the appellants in L.P.A. No. 383 of 2009 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.05.2010 by observing as under:-
"I.A. No. 2612 of 2009;
Having beard learned counsel for the appellant in the limitation matter (I.A. No. 2612 of 2009), the delay of 199 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
2. I.A. No. 2612 of 2009 stands allowed.
L.P.A.No. 383 of 2009:
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1363 of 2003, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents-appellants to pay the family pension to the petitioner- respondent.
2. Undisputedly, the petitioner's husband was an Armed Personnel in Central Reserve Police Force. After his unnatural death, the widow claimed family pension, which was not paid, on the ground that Rules Page 10 of 15 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB 2, 3 and 4 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 will not apply to the petitioner-respondent.
3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the benefit of Family Pension is payable to the petitioner, since the aforesaid Rules is applicable to the Armed Personnel, serving in Central Reserve Police Force.
4. We do not find any strong reason to differ with the views, taken by the learned Single Judge. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
27. Evidently, the findings rendered by the learned Writ Court as affirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal have attained finality and, therefore, would operate as res judicata between the parties. The respondents (appellants herein) cannot be permitted to re-litigate time and again on the same issue and harass the respondent who has lost her husband way back in the year 1995.
28. This Court is constrained to observe that the appellants being the "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India have conducted themselves of untrustworthiness and like belligerent litigant have driven the writ petitioner to unnecessary and otherwise uncalled for litigation. Instead of outrightly accepting their mistake, the appellants could not resist the temptation of litigation and have fought their legal battle as if it was a war. The battle otherwise is "uneven" as on one side is a public institution whereas on the other side is a private individual.
Page 11 of 15
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB
29. As such, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that public money has been wasted because of the adamant behavior of the officers of the appellants herein due to litigious attitude adopted by the officers in pursuing the instant litigation before this Court and trying to justify their action on one pretext or the other, that too being in completely mindful of the fact that the public offices, both big and small, are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse and in case repositories of such offices surpass the rule, then the law is not so powerless and would step in to quash such arbitrary order.
30. As observed above, the appellants are functionaries of the Department falling within the meaning of "State" as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and cannot, therefore, act like a private individual, who is free to act in a manner whatsoever he likes, unless it is interdicted or prohibited by law.
31. It is settled that the State and its instrumentalities have to act strictly within the four corners of law and all its activities are governed by Rules, Regulations and Instructions and in absence of any of these, they have to act fairly, justly and above all impartially.
32. From the above discussion, it is manifest that the action of the appellants herein is neither fair nor just.
33. It would be apt to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Others [(2011) 6 SCC 508], wherein it was observed as under:- Page 12 of 15
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB "41. Power vested by the State in a public authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact situation of a case. "Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them." A decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other."
34. Even otherwise, the country is governed by rule of law and put in by the immortal words of a 17th century English churchman and historian, Thomas Fuller, "Be ye ever so high, still the law is above you".
35. The repeated act of the appellants claiming that the petitioner would not be entitled to the Liberalized Pensionary Award is otherwise based on a complete misreading of the provisions as contained in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, more specifically, Para- 3(1) which stipules as under:-
"Para-3(1) Scope of Liberalized Pensionary Awards Scheme.
(1) These orders apply to Government servants killed or disabled-
(a) as a result of action in international wards,
(b) as a result of fighting in war-like operations or border skirmishes with any country,
(c) while fighting against armed hostiles, Page 13 of 15 Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB
(d) during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also mines sweeping operations between one month before the commencement and three months after the conclusion of the operations,
(e) as a result of attack by extremists, antisocial elements, etc. or during action against dacoits, smugglers, hostiles, etc."
36. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner was shot dead by his own Company's Constable who could conveniently be held to be an "antisocial element" and in that case, the petitioner would be covered under Clause (e) of Para-3(1), which, in addition to referring to attacks by extremists, antisocial elements, also uses the word "etc." at two stages making it evidently clear that any unnatural death on account of attack by extremists, antisocial elements, beyond or within the camp, would entitle the widow to the Liberalized Pensionary Award (LPA). This observation de hors the fact that this ground of challenge regarding non-applicability of the provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is otherwise not available to the appellants.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are clearly of the view that not only there is no merit in this appeal, but the appeal is nothing but an abuse of process of law and merely because officers of the appellants do not have to pay for the litigation from their own pockets, they cannot be permitted to file such frivolous petition/appeal and harass the respondent who has lost her husband, that too, way back in 1995.
Page 14 of 15
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:31617-DB
38. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, with a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) to be paid by the appellants to the respondent herein within 90 days from today, failing which the appellants herein shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 6% per annum, till the date of payment.
39. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) th October 14 , 2025 A.F.R. Manoj/Cp.2 Page 15 of 15