Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 571 (PAT)

Indu Devi v. State Of Bihar

2003-05-13

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2003
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, petitioner, who claims to be the widow of late Prem Kumar Dubey, who died in harness while posted as Proof Reader in Bihar Rastra Bhasha Rarishad on 31.10.2001, is aggrieved on account of non-release of the amount of provident fund, pension, part of gratuity i.e. out of Rs. 2,30,590/- she has been paid only a sum of Rs. 1,01,790/-, besides this even the provisional pension has been stopped since October, 2002. 2. Admittedly, the Director, Bihar Rastra Bhasha Parishad, Patna (Respondent no. 3) is the concerned authority. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no. 3 in which it is stated that Parishad has given the details of deduction to the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna Collectorate, Patna, and after issuance of the authority from the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna (Respondent no. 5) the Parishad will pay the amount. However, the Director, who has personally appeared, stated that the deduction statement earlier sent to the District Provident Fund Officer did not include the deductions made during the period 1981-82, and, as such, the District Provident Fund Officer has not been able to issue authority. I failed to appreciate the manner in which the Director has conducted himself as regards the provident fund. The husband of the petitioner died on 31.10.2001 and now it is almost over one and half year that she has been kept denied of the provident fund amount on account of the deiay in supply of deduction statement by the Director. However, the Director has assured that he shall send the deduction statement for the remaining period by tomorrow. District Provident Fund Officer (Respondent no. 5) is, accordingly, directed to issue authority with up-to-date statutory interest within three days of the receipt of the sanction of the remaining deduction statement and the Director (Respondent no. 3) is directed to ensure encashment of the authority and payment of the amount of the petitioner within three days of the receipt of the authority. 3. The authority for pension and gratuity have already been issued and have been brought on record as Annexures-5 & 6 respectively. 4. 3) is directed to ensure encashment of the authority and payment of the amount of the petitioner within three days of the receipt of the authority. 3. The authority for pension and gratuity have already been issued and have been brought on record as Annexures-5 & 6 respectively. 4. As regards recovery, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the committee formed after the death of the employee prepared a complete list of books and periodical during his period and as a result of that shortage of books and periodical of Rs. 1,39,282/- was detected for realisation from him, and, accordingly, the Director has issued instruction to the Treausry Officer, Patna on 9.5.2003 vide Annexure-C for recovery of the said amount from the baJance of gratuity and pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that earlier the Director vide letter dated 23.1.2002, contained in Annexure-2 sought for recovery/adjustment of Rs. 39,515/- only from the pension/gratuity and now by Annexure-C another claim of Rs. 1,39,282/- has been malafide raised by him for recovery from the death-cum-retiral dues of the deceased employee much after the death of the employee. 5. I find that the so-called committee constituted by the Director submitted its report after one and half year since the death of the employee and on that basis deduction of the aforementioned amount is sought to be made, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, I find it difficult to accept any valid justification for deduction of the said amount on the basis of the so-called report df the committee with respect to which the deceased was never informed during his life time and obviously no opportunity has been availed by the deceased to ascertain the correctness of the report. I am unable to appreciate as to how the Director expects from the widow to meet the questions raised in the report pursuant to which recovery has been sought to be made after one and half year of the death of the employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that earlier the Director issued letter on 23.1.2002 for recovery of only Rs. 39,515/-and now when this Court took serious view of the matter on account of non-payment of death-cum-retiral dues to the widow, he has sought to recover a sum of Rs. 1,39,282/- from the retiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that earlier the Director issued letter on 23.1.2002 for recovery of only Rs. 39,515/-and now when this Court took serious view of the matter on account of non-payment of death-cum-retiral dues to the widow, he has sought to recover a sum of Rs. 1,39,282/- from the retiral dues. In my opinion, after the death of employee/Government servant recovery in such manner is not permissible. It is only permissible by getting a decree of Civil Court of competent jurisdiction otherwise it would be violative of principles of natural justice and fair play, moreso, because it is not possible for the widow to dispute such recovery on merit for want of proper opportunities. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court finds that the attitude of the Director in discharging liability of paying death-cum-retiral dues to the widow is gross callous and this Court strongly deprecates his such attitude. 6. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the Director (Respondent no. 3) from his pocket to the petitioner. The Respondent no. 3 is further directed to issue necessary sanction order/make payment of the remaining dues accordingly within a week, failing which he shall be liable to pay further cost of Rs. 1,000/- from his pocket to the petitioner and the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for revival and for taking appropriate action.