Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 826 (PAT)

Lalpari Devi v. Rajendra Agricultural University

2003-08-08

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2003
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who claims to be the widow of Late Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh, who retired as Senior Clerk from Rajendra Agricultural University on 31.1.2002 and ultimately died on 16.9.2002, is aggrieved on account of withholding of 10% of lifetime pension and 10% of family pension, the amount of gratuity and leave encashment. 2. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University and its officials it appears that after filing of the writ petition the claim of the petitioner has been disposed of by a reasoned order dated 26th July, 2003, contained in Annexure B. According to the said order, the petitioner has been found entitled to get retiral benefits/ dues amounting to Rs. 1,89,516/- as per the details mentioned therein but, according to the University, a sum of Rs. 4,26,475.62 is recoverable as per audit of the accounts and stock-book of Directorate of Seed & Farm. So it has been found that after adjustment of the amount found payable a sum of Rs. 2,36,959.62 is to be refunded by the petitioner. 3. It is not the case of the respondents that during the lifetime of the deceased, the University after giving him opportunity found the said amount recoverable from him. However, the said recovery is sought to be made on the basis of the audit conducted during the period April, 1996 to November, 1999. According to the University, a copy of the audit report was given to the husband of the petitioner and he submitted explanation to the audit report. Nothing has been brought on record to show that on consideration of the said explanation any final decision was taken during the lifetime of the deceased. It is only after the death of the employee that a committee was constituted by the University on 7th May, 2003 as is evident from the order dated 26th July, 2003 (Annexure B) to consider the claims and the outstanding dues. Learned counsel for the University has failed to show that the auhority of the University has considered the explanation submitted by the deceased. 4. Under the above circumstances, I find it difficult to accept any valid justification for recovery of the amount on the basis of so-called audit objection, upon which except for asking of an explanation, no action was taken for almost three to four years. 4. Under the above circumstances, I find it difficult to accept any valid justification for recovery of the amount on the basis of so-called audit objection, upon which except for asking of an explanation, no action was taken for almost three to four years. This Court finds it difficult as to how the dues payable to the widow can be denied on such plea which remained undecided during the lifetime of the deceased, so much so that even after retirement the employee was alive for about nine months and kept on visiting the office of the Vice-Chancellor (respondent no. 2). This only depicts sheer callousness on the part of the University authorities in discharging their responsibility towards its employees and the widow, which is strongly deprecated. On the request of the learned counsel appearing for the University and its Vice-Chancellor twice the matter was adjourned to enable the University to come with redressal of the grievance, but till date there is no response. 5. In more or less similar circumstances, this Court, in the case of Radha Jha vs. The State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C. No. 9604 of 2002) disposed of on 27.11.2002, against which L.P.A. No. 1251 of 2002 has been dismissed on 27.1.2003, held that such recovery is not permissible. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ application is allowed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) to be paid by the Vice-Chancellor of the University (respondent no. 2) from his own pocket to the petitioner and a receipt in token thereof must be filed in this Court within a week. The respondent no. 2 is directed to pay the remaining dues as is found payable within a week, failing which he shall be liable to pay a further cost of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) from his pocket to the petitioner and the peitioner will be at liberty to file two-page affidavit for revival and for taking appropriate action.