Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 86 (PAT)

Shivajee Upadhaya v. State Of Bihar

1996-02-07

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body1996
Judgment 1. The petitioner claims to be the son of late Ram Pravash Upadhaya, who died in harness while posted as Havildar at Gaya in january, 1973. The grievance of the petitioner is that uptill now the General Provident fund amount: of his late father has not been paid to the petitioner. It is stated that on 7.7.78 the Superintendent of Police, Gaya issued authority letter no.3595 dated 10.4.75 for Rs.2943/- in favour of the deceased employee with a direction to get the amount from Arrah Treasury. Naturally because the authority letter was issued in the name of the deceased person, the treasury Officer returned the same on 14.3.81 with a request to re-issue in favour of the legal heir and representative of the said employee. Therefore on 11.12.83 the wife of the deceased also died, but the payment of the G. RF. amount was not made. It is stated that since then the petitioner has been approaching the authority in the Accountant General office as well as the Superintendent of Police Gaya, but nobody is paying any heed to his requests for payment of the G. P Fund amount. Only some kind of correspondences are being made. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Gaya (respondent no.2 ). The aforementioned facts have not been disputed in the said counter affidavit. However, in paragraph 10 it is stated that the G. RFund Account no. of the deceased employee is P-40882 and an intimation in this regard was sent to Senior accounts Officer, Accountant Generals office, bihar, Patna through special messenger vide memo no.1327 dated 28.11.94. and that the matter is not pending in his office, any more and no action in required at his level. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Accountant General. 4. It is really an unfortunate case that despite the death of the employee of the state Government s. s far back as in the year 1973, the amount of G. RF. has not been paid to his legal heir and representative, so much so that the wife of the deceased has also died on 11.12.83. 5. 4. It is really an unfortunate case that despite the death of the employee of the state Government s. s far back as in the year 1973, the amount of G. RF. has not been paid to his legal heir and representative, so much so that the wife of the deceased has also died on 11.12.83. 5. From the facts aforementioned, I am satisfied that there has been gross laches on the part of the Superintandent of Police, gaya as well as the Accountant Generals office, which bas not even bothered to take prompt action at their end. However, as it is stated in the counter affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, gaya that an intimation in regard to the account number has already been sent to the Senior Accounts officer, accountant Generals office, Bihar, Patna through special messenger vide memo no.1327 dated 28.11.94, I direct the Accountant general (respondent no.3) to do all the needful at his end for payment of the entire dues of the deceased employee, if not already done. 6. In the circumstances aforementioned, in my opinion the petitioner deserves to be paid heavy interest and cost as well. Accordingly, I direct the Accountant general (respondent no.3) to calculate a penal interest over ihe dues of the deceased,employee at the rate of 18% per annum besides the statutory interest and takes steps at his end for payment of the said amount also along with a cost of Rs.2000/-within a period of two weeks of the receipt of a "copy of this order. 7. The respondents authorities in the state are directed to see that the payment of the entire dues of the deceased employee is made in accordance with law within two weeks of the receipt the intimation from the accountant General. It is made clear that any default on the part of any authority either in the Accountant Generals office or in the State shall be taken seriously and this court may consider to initiate a contempt proceeding. It is further made clear that the accountant General/or the State Government shall be at liberty to realise the amount of interest as well as the cost from the officer/officers found responsible for such inordinate delay in making payment of the provident fund amount to the employee after giving notice to such officer/officers. This writ application is accordingly disposed of.