Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 324 (JHR)

Taru Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter no. 20.02.2008 issued by respondent no. 3 (which is at Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby the respondents had illegally deducted the amount of Rs. 62,000/-from the gratuity of her husband, even after his death. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that FIR was lodged against the husband of the petitioner and others by the Mukhiya of Tetla Panchayat on 30.09.1996 under Sections 409/420/466/471/120B and 120C of the Indian Penal Code at Sonahatu Police Station alleging that certain cheques were snatched by certain persons, which were also withdrawn amounting to Rs. 62,000/-in which complicity of the petitioner's husband was also alleged as he was Panchayat Sevak. However, petitioner's husband died during the course of trial of the said criminal case while in service. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure-6 has been issued thereafter, deducting Rs. 62,000/-as aforesaid, without any proceeding or enquiry departmentally against the petitioner's husband, even while he was alive. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit enclosing the order passed by Additional Collector on 29.01.2008, which is at Annexure-F, wherein it is also stated that on account of death of the petitioner's husband late Jai Singh Mahato, no departmental proceeding could be initiated against him, though late Jai Singh Mahato was absolved of the guilt in the aforesaid matter in the light of the lack of evidence, but the amount of Rs. 62,000/-should be recovered from the gratuity of petitioner's husband late Jai Singh Mahato. After hearing counsel for both the parties and from perusal of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the aforesaid order (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) has been passed after the death of the petitioner without resorting to the procedure established law to arrive at a findings about deduction of gratuity of the petitioner's husband. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to defend the aforesaid impugned order for the plain and simple reason that it has been passed in wholly arbitrary manner without following any procedure established in the law where it can be done by way of departmental enquiry or under Jharkhand Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to defend the aforesaid impugned order for the plain and simple reason that it has been passed in wholly arbitrary manner without following any procedure established in the law where it can be done by way of departmental enquiry or under Jharkhand Pension Rules. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned order is accordingly set aside. From perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that certain admissible amounts payable to the petitioner on account of death of her husband late Jai Singh Mahato have been paid, which are enumerated in paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit of the respondent. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that leave encashment amount from November, 2000 to 18th January, 2001 for a period of two and half months and salary of suspension period of the petitioner's husband has not yet been paid. In the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach to the respondents for the aforesaid relevant dues by filing a representation furnishing all the necessary facts and particulars as required by the competent authority within a period of two weeks. In case, such a representation is filed before the Respondent No. 2, (the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi), he would consider the same in accordance with law and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of six weeks thereafter and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to any of the dues legally admissible to her, the same should be paid within four weeks thereafter with statutory interest, if any. As a consequence to the quashing of the impugned order dated 22.02.2008, as contained in Annexure-6, remaining amount payable to the petitioner on account of gratuity should be paid within aforesaid period. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.