Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 95 (PAT)

Most. Indira Seth v. State Of Bihar

2001-02-05

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2001
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is widow of late Shiv Shankar Seth, who died on 17.7.1997 while posted as Assistant Engineer, N.R.E.P., Jhanjharpur. The Parent Department of the deceased employee was Road Construction Department and he was posted in R.E.O. on deputation at the time of his death. After the death of her deceased husband, petitioner was paid only the amount of Group Insurance and with respect to the remaining post retiral dues, she learnt that the office of the Executive Engineer had forwarded the necessary papers to the office of the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Madhubani, where the matter was held up, which compelled her to file the present writ application on 18.12.2000. Her husband left behind the petitioner as widow, two sons and one married daughter. 2. This matter was heard for the first time on 19.12.2000, when on the request of the learned Standing Counsel No. X appearing for the Respondents, matter was adjourned to 5.1.2001 to enable him to produce necessary sanction order for payment of the entire dues of the widow- petitioner. Thereafter the matter was passed over on five occasions, but no sanction order was produced. This Court deprecated the action of the State officials in the order dated 12.1.2001 as the widow was kept deprived for the death-cum-retiral dues for the last three and half years. However, as a matter of last indulgence, the matter was adjourned to 16.1.2001 for final disposal. On 16.1.2001 counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhubani and Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P., Madhubani (Respondent nos. 5 & 6), and second one on behalf of State of Bihar through Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department (Respondent no.1) and third one on behalf of Accountant General (Respondent no. 8). After going through the affidavits and hearing the parties this Court found that there was gross negligence on the part of the different authorities in dealing with the claim of death-cum- retiral dues of widow-petitioner, whose husband died long back on 17.7.1997. However, the sanction order for pension and gratuity were produced, but the dues relating to provident fund and leave, encashment were not paid to the petitioner. However, the sanction order for pension and gratuity were produced, but the dues relating to provident fund and leave, encashment were not paid to the petitioner. A plea was taken that payment of provident fund amount was to be made by the District Provident Fund Officer and with respect to leave encashment the authorisation was required to be issued by the Finance Department and ultimately the same are to be paid by the District Magistrate, Madhubani. This Court expressing shock over such plea as all the said authorities are officials of the State, directed for personal appearance of the Finance Commissioner, District Magistrate, Madhubani and District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani on 19.1.2001. Three further affidavits were filed-one on behalf of the Secretary, Road Construction Department, second on behalf of District Magistrate, Madhubani and third on behalf of District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani. However, no affidavit on behalf of Finance Commissioner was filed. It was stated by the learned standing counsel that the Director, Provident Fund has also instructed him that he would be filing affidavit, but no affidavit had come till that day. Accordingly, on the prayer made, learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to add Finance Commissioner and Director, Provident Fund as Respondent nos. 9 & 10 respectively and adjourned the matter for 24.1.2001 with an observation that in case full payment of the dues are made to the petitioner, personal appearance of the officers shall not be required on the next date. 3. Despite all these hectic efforts, no payment was made to the petitioner till 25.1.2001. A plea was taken on behalf of the Respondents that Treasury Officer, Samastipur had not passed the bill for want of some more information. After expressing anguish this Court directed for personal appearance of the Treasury Officer, who appeared before this Court on 2.2.2001. This Court without going into the controversy, which was sought to be raised by the Treasury officer, directed that payment of the entire dues must be made before the matter is listed today, failing which this Court shall take serious view of the matter and may consider to take appropriate action against the erring officials. This Court without going into the controversy, which was sought to be raised by the Treasury officer, directed that payment of the entire dues must be made before the matter is listed today, failing which this Court shall take serious view of the matter and may consider to take appropriate action against the erring officials. However, after such hectic efforts today this Court is informed by the learned Standing Counsel that the entire dues of the petitioner have now been paid which has also been accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner except the amount of G.P.F. for which learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of details furnished by the authorities, petitioner is not in a position to either accept or deny as to whether the entire dues have been paid to her with uptodate statutory interest. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the facts and circumstances it is a fit case for awarding penal interest and cost to the petitioner on the admitted dues which may be directed to be recovered from the erring officer. 4. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the petitioner has been paid uptodate statutory interest on the provident fund amount and fairly agreed that the details of the calculation can be furnished to the petitioner, if she approaches the District Provident Fund Officer. As regards penal interest and cost, learned Standing Counsel submitted that as the officials of the State have taken prompt action since this Court has issued direction and the dues of the petitioner have been paid, this Court may rake lenient view of the matter and refrain from awarding any penal interest and cost. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances this Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. This Court finds it to be a fit case for awarding penal interest @ 10% per annum on the admitted amount from the due date till the payment has been made, except on the amount of provident fund which carries statutory interest and have been paid to the petitioner uptodate statutory interest as informed and cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within one month of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within one month of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. The amount of penal interest and cost shall be recovered from the erring official on enquiry to be held by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department (Respondent no. 1). 6. It is needless to add that all the authorities including the Finance Commissioner shall take all necessary steps for release of the amount of interest and cost well within time so that payment is made to the petitioner within the aforesaid time. 7. The District Provident Fund Officer is directed to furnish the details of the amount of provident fund on petitioners contacting him along with a copy of this order, whereupon if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said accounting, she will move the appropriate authority for the redressal of her grievance. 8. This application is, thus, disposed of.