Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1474 (PAT)

Vijay Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar

2011-07-18

RAKESH KUMAR

body2011
ORDER Heard Shri Umesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Ranjan, learned A.C. to S.C.15, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Ramkinkar Chaubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5/Accountant General, Bihar. 2. The present writ petition was filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to make payment of family pension since father of the petitioner died on 24.6.1984. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-8 to the petition i.e. an authorization issued by the Accountant General contained in Memo No.1494 dated 13.11.2009 addressed to the Treasury officer, Patna. While issuing authorization, the Accountant General had asked the Treasury Officer, Patna to ensure payment after conducting enquiry. Even after issuance of authorization by the Accountant General, no step was taken by the Treasury Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner got legal notice issued on the Treasury Officer on 29.12.2009. Even thereafter, second notice was issued through advocate of the petitioner to the Treasury Officer. However, all efforts went in vain. Subsequently, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. In the present writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Treasury Officer/respondent no.4 wherein he had stated that authorization dated 13.9.2009 was received in the office of the Treasury Officer. The Treasury Officer, in its counter affidavit, has not dealt with any averment made in the writ petition. In some and substance, it appears from the contents of the counter affidavit of Treasury Officer that he had shifted onus on petitioner for delay in the matter. However, the respondent/Treasury Officer has not at all stated as to what action he took after the receipt of authrorization from the Accountant General and legal notice on behalf of the petitioner. Nothing has been mentioned in the counter affidavit. 5. In view of non controverting averment made in the writ petition, it will be deemed that the respondents have accepted the averment made in the writ petition. Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that immediately after receipt of the authorization i.e. Annexure-8 to the writ petition, the Treasury Officer was required to take steps for payment of the family pension. Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that immediately after receipt of the authorization i.e. Annexure-8 to the writ petition, the Treasury Officer was required to take steps for payment of the family pension. It is surprising that death of father of the petitioner occurred in the year 1984, however, respondents have not given any explanation as to how delay of such a long time has occurred in authorization of family pension. Authorization was issued in the year 2009. 6. Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to get interest on delayed payment. At the moment, it would be appropriate to direct respondent no.4/Treasury Officer to make payment of due family pension to the petitioner since the petitioner has already asserted in the writ petition that other legal heirs have already authorized the petitioner to receive payment on their behalf. Accordingly, the Treasury Officer is directed to make payment to the petitioner in respect of due family pension within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. So far as interest on delayed payment is concerned, all the respondents are directed to calculate the interest from the date of death of father of the petitioner till the date of payment. So far as interest from the date of authorization i.e. Annexure-8 to the writ petition is concerned, the Treasury Officer/Respondent no.4 is directed to pay interest from the date of authorization i.e. 13.11.2009 till the date of payment. It is made clear that interest from the date of receipt of authorization in the office of Treasury Officer till the date of payment shall be recovered from the salary of Treasury Officer i.e. respondent no.4. The interest shall be charged as per the rate presently applicable on the Saving Bank Account of Nationalized Bank. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.