Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1299 (PAT)

Radha Jha v. State Of Bihar

2002-11-27

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. As prayed learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Agriculture Production Commissioner as Respondent no. 1 with the nomenclature The State of Bihar, through Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner who is widow of the deceased Government servant, late Uma Kant Jha, has sought for direction to the Respondent-authorities for payment of gratuity payable after the death of her husband in harness on 3.3.1998 with statutory interest at market rate. 3. Petitioners husband was appointed by the Respondent-authorities as far back as on 12.12.1980 and died on 3.3.1998 while working as Agriculture Inspector; Kishanganj. When despite request and making representation, payment of gratutity amount was not made,. the petitioner was compelled to file this writ application. 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents, in which it is stated that the petitioner has been sanctioned full pension and gratuity vide order no. 429 dated 12.2.2002 (Annexure-A). Further, it is vaguely stated that reason for delay in issuance of the order was that it was reported that there were outstanding dues against the husband of the petitioner, who had taken advance which was outstanding. It is further stated that he was incharge of the P.l.Godown of his office and as he had died in harness, an inventory of the same was prepared, whereafter, the sanction order was issued. 5. On 1.11.2002 learned Government Pleader No. l produced D.C.R.G. payment order along with letter no. 3293 dated 31.10.2002 issued by the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Department, which shows that deduction of Rs. 91,700/- was made on account of outstanding advance and shortage shown in the inventory without giving any detail. The Court adjourned the matter to enable the State authority to file affidavit giving satisfactory explanation with respect to the aforementioned deductions made from the D.C.R.G. payable to the widow-petitioner. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 15.11.2002, which again was vague and did not contain the details and only contains the statement that the amount was adjusted as against the advance of Rs. 40,500/- given to the deceased and Rs. 51,200/- on account of shortage of value of goods reported by Sub-divisional Agriculture Officer after preparation of inventory. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 15.11.2002, which again was vague and did not contain the details and only contains the statement that the amount was adjusted as against the advance of Rs. 40,500/- given to the deceased and Rs. 51,200/- on account of shortage of value of goods reported by Sub-divisional Agriculture Officer after preparation of inventory. As the said affidavit was filed under the instruction of the Deputy Secretary, this Court on the prayer made by the learned Government Pleader No. l further adjourned the matter for listing on 25.11.2002 under the same heading within top five cases on payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to be paid by the Deputy Secretary. The Deputy Secretary has filed l.A. No. 5177 of 2002 seeking modification of the order dated 15.11.2002 whereby he has been directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost from his pocket. Second supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents sworn by the Deputy Secretary to which certain documents have been annexed to show that the amount of advance of Rs. 40,500/- was outstanding. 7. l failed to appreciate the said stand being taken on behalf of the Respondents after almost five years of the death of the Government servant. In the counter affidavit it is alleged that the advance was taken by the deceased employee in between 29.4.1991 to 1.12.1992 and from further statements it appears that a reminder was sent to the deceased Government servant for presenting vouchers by September, 1995, which he failed to do so. it is really shocking that such objection cropped up only after the death of the Government servant and adjustments are sought to be made from the death-cum-retiral dues payable to the widow who obviously cannot meet such claim of the department. As already noted above, according to the case of the Respondents, the deceased got the abovementioned alleged advance during the period 29.4.1991 to 1.12.1992 and he died on 3.3.1998 i.e. after the lapse of five years, but, no action was taken against him during his life time except making request to him to submit vouchers. As already noted above, according to the case of the Respondents, the deceased got the abovementioned alleged advance during the period 29.4.1991 to 1.12.1992 and he died on 3.3.1998 i.e. after the lapse of five years, but, no action was taken against him during his life time except making request to him to submit vouchers. However, learned Government Pleader has pointed that twice payment of salary was stopped on account of non-adjustment of advance, but, later, on the request made by the deceased, the same was released, but he has not been able to show that at least for three years before his death any proceeding was initiated against him and recovery was made. l failed to appreciate as to how after the death of Government servant the Government expects from the widow to meet such claim of the department. 8. In the instant case, another peculiar stand has been taken on behalf of the Department that a sum of Rs. 51,200/- has been adjusted on account of shortage of value of goods reported by the Sub-divisional Agriculture Officer after preparation of inventory. From the second supplementary affidavit, l find that after the death of the Government servant on 3.3.1998 the Sub-divisional Agriculture Officer after three months i.e. on 6.6.1998 requested the S.D.O., Kishanganj for deputation of a Magistrate for preparation of inventory of P.l. Godown which was under the charge of the deceased employee as alleged. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the District Magistrate, Purnea and Joint Director of Agriculture, Saharsa Division vide Annexure-H, but it took over three years since the death of the Government servant in preparing the inventory on 19.9.2001 and on that basis a deduction of the aforementioned amount is sought to be made. l again find it difficult to accept that the deduction made is justified. It is not the case of the Respondents that they did not have any knowledge of the death of the Government servant or that soon after the death of the Government servant the godown and the Almirahs were put under lock and seal and inventory was made without wastage of time. Admittedly, it has taken over three years to prepare this inventory and on that basis a recovery is being sought to be made. Admittedly, it has taken over three years to prepare this inventory and on that basis a recovery is being sought to be made. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, l find it difficult to accept any valid justification for deduction of the said amount on the basis of the so called inventory. l failed to appreciate as to how the Government expects from the widow to meet the aforementioned two stand on account of which the recovery of Rs. 91,700/- has been made. Moreover, the payment of even the admitted amount has only been made after filing of the writ application. This only depicts sheer callousness on the part of the State authorities in discharging the responsibility swards the widow of the deceased Government servant which is strongly deprecated. 9. Under the above facts and circumstances, this Court directs the Agriculture Production Commissioner to release the said remaining amount of Rs. 91,700/- within one week. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, the petitioner shall be entitled for penal interest @ 12% per annum on the entire due amount which have been paid after filing of the writ application and is to be paid under this direction from the due date till the payment have been made besides a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Necessary sanction order for the amount of penal interest and cost shall also be issued within one week. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated in l.A. No. 5177 of 2002 the order dated 15.11.2002 awarding cost against the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture is hereby recalled. Personal appearance of the Deputy Secretary shall not be required till further order. 11. Put up this matter after one week under the same heading in order to enable the authority concerned to comply this order by producing necessary sanction order. 12. As prayed by learned Government Pleader No. l, let a copy of this order be supplied to him. Order dated 3.2.2003 Pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2002, learned Government Pleader no. l has produced photo copies of the sanction orders with respect to compliance of the said order issued to the Accountant General on 1st February, 2003. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General assures that the authority pursuant to the said sanction orders shall be issued within three days. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the order of this Court has been complied. 3. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General assures that the authority pursuant to the said sanction orders shall be issued within three days. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the order of this Court has been complied. 3. The matter, accordingly, stands finally disposed of. 4. Photo copies of the sanction orders produced today have been handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner.