Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 441 (PAT)

Lalita Devi v. State Of Bihar

2010-03-23

JYOTI SARAN

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, for the petitioner, Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal for the Magadh University, Mr. Sarvadeo Singh for respondent no. 6, the Principal, G.J. College, Rambagh, Bihta, Patna and Mr. Amod Kumar, Junior Counsel to Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel representing the Life Insurance Corporation of India. 2. The petitioners are the daughters of the deceased employee late Mahendra Manjhi. The writ petition was filed by the widow of late Mahendra Manjhi for payment of death-cum-retiral dues and other dues admissible to him. During the pendency of the proceedings, the widow of late Mahendra Manjhi, Matiya Devi who filed the writ petition, expired and was substituted by her daughters, Lalita Devi and Sumita Devi who are pursuing the matter. 3. The facts in brief are that late Mahendra Manjhi joined the G.J. College, Rambag, Bihta, a constituent college under Magadh University, on the post of Lab. Boy on 18.11.1976. Upon being aggrieved by non-consideration of the cases for promotion to Class-Ill post, late Mahendra Manjhi alongwith some other came before this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 2524 of 1981 and which was disposed of by order dated 31.8.1981 with a direction to the University to consider the cases of the writ petitioners and only if they were not found fit for promotion, such vacancies would be filled by direct recruitment. 4. Usual non-compliance, led to the filing of a contempt petition bearing MJC No. 438 of 1981, which was disposed of on the basis of undertaking given on behalf of the University that they would first consider the cases of the petitioners and only thereafter the other promotions would be considered. Copies of the order of this Court are placed at Annexures-2 and 3 of the writ petition. 5. The case of the petitioners and others was considered by the University and they were found fit for promotion and by order dated 18.2.1982, they were promoted to Class-Ill post. The name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 8 of the order and he was promoted to the post of Routine Clerk (Annexure-4). By passage of time, the petitioner and others were promoted to the post of Assistant and which was accorded under order dated 25.11.1999 (Annexure-12) promoting him to the post of Assistant with effect from 28.9.1987. Following the said order, a formal order was issued on 20.12.1999 (Annexure-13). 6. By passage of time, the petitioner and others were promoted to the post of Assistant and which was accorded under order dated 25.11.1999 (Annexure-12) promoting him to the post of Assistant with effect from 28.9.1987. Following the said order, a formal order was issued on 20.12.1999 (Annexure-13). 6. The husband of the petitioner unfortunately expired within three months of the issuance of the order of promotion on 7.3.2000. The non-payment of death-cum-retiral dues and other dues of late Mahendra Manjhi forced his widow to file this writ petition. Until this stage, there was no objection regarding the status of late Mahendra Manjhi as an employee who died-in-harness while holding the post of Assistant. At least, no such intimation was given either to the deceased employee or to his family members. 7. It is in course of the present proceedings that an affidavit came to be filed by the Principal of the College who placed a pay fixation order dated 8.4.2004, i.e. after the death of late Mahendra Manjhi who expired on 7.3.2000. 8. It is indisputed that no proceeding for cancellation of the promotion or any hearing was given to the deceased employee before the said exercise was carried on. With the death of Mahendra Manjhi on 7.3.2000, no proceeding could have been drawn against him nor there could be any ex parte curtailment of his benefits unless it could be shown that the promotion(s) were void ab initio. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that most of the employees whose names finds in the promotion order as contained in Annexure-4, have since been granted their salary on the promoted post and that the person appearing at Serial No. 1 of the order, namely, Satyanand Prasad having been subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant like the deceased employee Mahendra Manjhi, vide Annexure-2, also got the arrears of salary attached to the said post. 10. The said position is not controverted by the University. That, no any proceeding can be initiated against a dead person requires reference to any judicial pronouncement. 11. 10. The said position is not controverted by the University. That, no any proceeding can be initiated against a dead person requires reference to any judicial pronouncement. 11. It is also not the case of the University that the deceased employee was not entitled to the promotions rather they have simply referred to the provisions of Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which puts a rider to the University to seek the permission of the State Government before taking any decision regarding financial implications. The said provision(s) in no manner affects the routine promotion(s) taking place in the University. In any view, the employee having died-in-harness while holding the post of Assistant, his benefits could not have been curtailed without any finding that he was not entitled to the promotion(s). 12. In such situation, there are no two issues that the petitioners herein would be entitled to all the benefits as admissible to late Mahendra Manjhi by way of arrears of salary attached to the post of Routine Clerk with effect from 18.2.1982 until 27.9.1987 as also the arrears of salary of the post of Assistant with effect from 28.9.1987 up to 7.8.2000. The petitioners would also be entitled to the payment of family pension admissible to their mother Matiya Devi calculated against the post of Assistant from the date of death of late Mahendra Manjhi on 7.3.2000 up to the death of Matiya Devi on 23.3.2005. They would also be entitled to the other retiral benefits viz. gratuity, unutilised leave, provident fund etc. as found admissible under the Rules. 13. In so far as the payment of group insurance is concerned, an objection was raised by learned counsel for the Corporation that as the policy was in a lapsed condition due to non-deposit of premium by the University at the relevant time, i.e. on 7.3.2000, when Mahendra Manjhi expired, he was not entitled to the payment of the insurance amount arising out from the scheme. 14. Learned counsel for the Corporation in the same breath also submits that the policy stood revived soon after the deposit of the required premium but since the death of the employee took place during the period when the policy was in lapsed condition, hence, he is not entitled to the benefits. 15. 14. Learned counsel for the Corporation in the same breath also submits that the policy stood revived soon after the deposit of the required premium but since the death of the employee took place during the period when the policy was in lapsed condition, hence, he is not entitled to the benefits. 15. Whether or not, the dependants of late Mahendra Manjhi would be entitled to the benefits of the Group Insurance, in the circumstances that in absence of payment of the premium the policy stood lapsed though stood revived on the date on which the claim was put forth by the College, and whether the Insurance Compary can single out one employee depriving him the claim, would be considered by this court on the next occasion. 16. Put up this matter on 29th March, 2010 at the top of the list.