Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1157 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Most. Rabiya Khatoon

2007-07-18

KISHORE K.MANDAL, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard JC to SC 9 for the appellants. 2. By the order impugned the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ application directing the authorities concerned to make payment of retiral dues admissible in law to the writ petitioner-respondent within a period of one month from the date of the order with interest of 18 per cent per annum. 3. It appears that this case has a chequered history. The husband of the writ petitioner-respondent was a Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar and after completing his tenure of services he superannuated in the year 1989. After his retirement, he approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2218 of 2001 for payment of his retiral dues. A plea was taken in the writ application by the State respondents that on account of misplacement of the service book payments could not be made. This Court, however, disposed of the writ application aforesaid with a direction to the State-respondents to re-construct the service book of the respondents husband and pay all retiral dues forthwith. The husband of the respondent died immediately after passing of the order in writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 2218 of 2001) itself. The matter however, remained pending and when no payment whatsoever was made towards the retiral dues of the husband of the respondent, she approached this Court by this writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 4926 of 2005). The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and arguments of the respective counsel held that the widow-writ petitioner-respondent was entitled for retiral dues of her husband with 18 per cent interest. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, however, submitted that a sum of Rs. 6.87 lakhs was recoverable from the husband of respondent as the deceased husband had not returned the articles entrusted to him during his service tenure including a sum of Rs. 18,000/-which he had taken as advance. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, however, submitted that a sum of Rs. 6.87 lakhs was recoverable from the husband of respondent as the deceased husband had not returned the articles entrusted to him during his service tenure including a sum of Rs. 18,000/-which he had taken as advance. 5. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, held that no chit of paper was produced before the Court to show that some articles were entrusted to the husband of the widow during his service tenure nor any step was taken to ask him to return the articles nor there was any proceeding in terms of Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules and, therefore, the State Authorities were not entitled to recover anything from the retiral dues of the deceased husband of the respondent. At the same time, it was also held by the learned Single Judge that on the basis of the materials produced in Court it was found that a sum of Rs. 16,652/- only was taken as advance though the finding in support of it were not found above suspicion. 6. From the findings, recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court we find that necessary direction have been given to the respondents authorities to make payment of retiral dues admissible in law with interest, The direction issued by the learned Single Judge, in the background of the case where the writ petitioner-respondent was left in the lurch and she was compelled to come to this Court does not appear to be a lacuna or without jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that the rate of interest has been awarded upto 18% per cent which is exorbitant. 8. It would be pertinent to mention here that the husband of the writ petitioner-respondent retired sometime in 1989 and thereafter he approached this Court for retiral dues and died. Nothing was paid to the widow even thereafter and she was compelled to come to this Court in 2005. The matter thus remained pending before the Government for about 16 years and not even a single penny was paid to her. In this view of the matter, the writ petitioner respondent was required to be compensated by awarding some interest on the retiral dues. 9. The matter thus remained pending before the Government for about 16 years and not even a single penny was paid to her. In this view of the matter, the writ petitioner respondent was required to be compensated by awarding some interest on the retiral dues. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest to the extent of 18% per cent however, is reduced to 12% per cent per annum. 10. With this modification in the order impugned, this appeal is dismissed. 11. The direction of this Court should be implemented forthwith.