Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1175 (JHR)

Neelam Devi v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2008-10-16

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2008
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the reasoned order dated 21/22.4.2008, issued by the respondents in pursuance of the order dated 19.2.2008, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 694 of 2008. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to pay her the death-cum-retiral dues of her husband on account of death occurred on 27.2.2006 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 694 of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.2.2008, directing the Chief General Manager, Washery Division, Central Coal Washery Sansthan, Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad to consider the representation of the petitioner and determine as to whether the petitioner was entitled to any amount and also statutory interest with regard to the claim of death-cum-retiral dues of her husband. In the order it was specifically directed that the amount legally payable/tenable should be paid and the representation should be disposed of by a reasoned order and also to communicate the same to the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation, which was disposed of by the respondents by a detailed speaking/reasoned order. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned order, it appears that each of the claim of the petitioner was specifically dealt with and reasons were assigned, dealing with the actual facts and figures under the following heads: (i) Payment of provident fund with interest, (ii) Payment of Gratuity with interest, (iii) Payment of death benefit with interest, (iv) Payment of Leave encashment with interest, (v) Payment of LTC with interest, (vi) Payment of medical bill (pending before F.M. at PCW since 27.2.2000) and 17.3.06 with interest, (vii) Payment of 2% deduction in pension account with interest, (viii) Payment of any other dues with interest. 4. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the cheques are ready for payment and it was duly intimated to the petitioner to collect the same but she has not turned up till date. 4. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the cheques are ready for payment and it was duly intimated to the petitioner to collect the same but she has not turned up till date. In the impugned order dated 22.4.2008 it has also been indicated that there are two quarters, namely, E/127 and E/128, which have been illegally occupied and the penal rent calculated has also been indicated which, according to the respondents, has to be adjusted and the cheques for the balance amount as indicated was ready. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required since the earlier order, passed by this Court dated 19.2.2008 stands fully complied with and the amount payable has already been indicated under the aforesaid eight heads and the cheques are ready for payment. However, the same is subject to adjustment towards the penal rent calculated and payable against the petitioner and her husband since dead. 6. I have also considered the arguments for not vacating the quarter which has been also indicated in the writ petition at paragraph 21, 22 and 23. Annexure 18 series at page 63 as referred to and relied upon and the same is misconceived and unsustainable. It will be evident from the order dated 14.4.2003 that even the provisional allotment made was cancelled and the husband of the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the quarter way back in 2003. 7. The pleading and the argument that in view of pendency of the writ petition for compassionate appointment, the quarters have been retained is also illegal and unsustainable. Under the rules and guidelines, beyond the period as prescribed for retaining the quarters after the death of the deceased employee, there is no legal right to continue in the said quarter and in case of delay in vacating the same, certainly penal rent can be charged. 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to deposit the admissible amount payable directly in the account of the petitioner, if she does not come to collect it within a month from the date of this order. The amount so calculated in the impugned order dated 21/22.4.2008 should accordingly be deposited after deducting the penal rent, as calculated. The amount so calculated in the impugned order dated 21/22.4.2008 should accordingly be deposited after deducting the penal rent, as calculated. However, the respondents will also pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum prior to the period, on which the cheque was actually ready for the sole reason that such period of delay is attributable to them. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid directions, without any order as to costs.