Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1080 (JHR)

Rama Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-05

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. M. Jalisur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to finalize and pay the amount of Family Pension, Gratuity, G.P.F. amount, Earned Leave, Benefit of Time bound promotion, Benefit of A.C.P. and other admitted dues, which have not been paid to the petitioner till date and was payable in the account of the petitioner’s husband, who died in harness while being employed under the Respondents on 24.11.2003. 3. It appears that during the pendency of this writ application, the amounts towards Gratuity, Earned leave, Group Insurance, and provisional pension have been released to the petitioner. The matter relating to balance claim was referred to the Lok Adalat but the dispute could not be resolved on account of the objection raised by the Respondents on the ground that the deceased-husband of the petitioner had received some amount by way of advance for executing certain works under different Schemes and a six men Committee comprising of 2 Assistant Engineers and 4 Junior Engineer was constituted for assessment of the work done under the aforementioned Schemes and the aforesaid Committee after assessment of the work, found the total unadjusted amount to be Rs. 41,43,492.72/- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner’s husband died in harness on 24.11.2003, but prior to his death, the petitioner’s husband had submitted all relevant papers including the statements of accounts, in which the amounts spent towards the advance received has been mentioned in detail and to the knowledge of the petitioner, there could be no outstanding balance in respect of the advance amount. It is only after the death of the petitioner’s husband that the Respondents have now come up with the stand that further substantial amounts has not been accounted for by the deceased-husband of the petitioner and when the matter came to the knowledge of the petitioner, she submitted some hand receipts, measurement book, vouchers etc., which she found from the safe of her demised husband and inspite of that, the amount towards outstanding balance has been sought to be recovered through the Gratuity paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel adds further, that no proceeding in accordance with the Pension Rules was ever initiated during the entire period of service of the deceased-employee and even after the death of the petitioner’s husband. No purported unadjusted amount could now be legally recoverable from the amount of Gratuity. Learned counsel in support of his contention, refers to and relies upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudhnath Pandey-versus-State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in 2007 (4) J.C.R. 1 (Jhr.) (FB). 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, stating that for execution of certain works, under different Schemes the petitioner’s husband had received amount of Rs. 1,28,94,800/-by way of advance but a sum of more than Rs. 41,43,492/-was found to have remained unaccounted by the petitioner’s husband and after adjusting the amount towards leave encashment and part Gratuity, the department had contemplated to initiate a Certificate proceedings against the employees for realizing the aforesaid outstanding dues. It is further submitted that since the matter was subjudice, the provisional pension to the extent of 90 per cent has been released to the petitioner besides the other dues, which, she has already received. 6. From the facts stated by the Respondents, it appears that no proceeding was ever initiated during the lifetime of the petitioner’s husband for realization of any amount from him. Furthermore, no proceeding was initiated under the provisions of Rule 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rules. The payments towards Gratuity cannot possibly be withheld without initiating any proceeding under the provisions of Rule 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rules. 7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the Respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for payment of Gratuity and the other balance of the retiral dues and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner. The legally payable amounts, which have remained unpaid, shall be released and paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of the decision taken on the petitioner’s claim with the statutory interest. 8. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-State.