Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1048 (JHR)

Deomuni Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-12

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner's husband who was Class-III employee in Civil Court, Dhanbad, died on 6th February 2008 during his service. The petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application to direct the concerned respondent to pay her family pension and other death-cum-retiral dues. The petitioner's husband was granted the benefits of two ACP during his service, the first ACP with effect from 9th August 1999 and second ACP with effect from 19th May 2003. These financial upgradations were further confirmed by the Secretary, Law (Justice) Department, Government of Jharkhand on 10th February 2011 which has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the concerned Secretary (Law). 3. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the District Accounts Officer, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 6), on the point of verification of the relevant entries in the service book of the deceased employee whether he had passed the departmental examination before the grant of the said ACP, has withheld the sanction of final pension to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the wake of due confirmation of the grant of ACP by the Secretary, Law (Justice) Department, and after the death of the employee concerned on 6th February 2008, at this stage, there is no justification for the concerned respondent no. 6 to withhold the pensionary dues on such issue without any show-cause or notice to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, her husband had entered into service on 28th May 1979 and on completion of 28 years 8 months and 8 days of service he died in harness on 6th February 2008. Therefore, on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service respectively, he was otherwise also entitled for grant of ACP. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said benefits have been granted after due process and screening of records of the deceased employee and which has been duly confirmed by the Secretary, Law. At this stage, respondent District Accounts Officer had no justification to withhold the same. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the service benefits of the deceased employee were scrutinized by the respondent no. At this stage, respondent District Accounts Officer had no justification to withhold the same. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the service benefits of the deceased employee were scrutinized by the respondent no. 6 - District Accounts Officer and when it was noticed that there is no entry of such passing of departmental examination or exemption thereof in the service book of the concerned employee, queries have been made from the competent authority in respect of the same. However, according to him, there is no specific order to withhold the grant of family pension to the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record, it appears that the husband of the petitioner had died in harness on 6th February 2008 itself, by which time, he had been conferred the benefits of first and second ACP. Moreover, the grant of such ACP was also confirmed by the order of Secretary, Law (Justice) Department, Government of Jharkhand, who is a competent authority, on 10th February 2011 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. The same has also been accepted in the affidavit of the respondent Secretary, Law. The petitioner has also not been issued any show-cause or notice before her family pension has been withheld allegedly since January 2012. In such circumstances, there is no justification on the part of the respondent no. 6 to withhold the grant of family pension and other death-cum-retiral dues which are outstanding to the widow petitioner in lieu of her husband who died in harness. Therefore, the said plea cannot be countenanced on behalf of the concerned respondent to withhold the grant of family pension and death-cum-retiral dues of the deceased employee and that too without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner widow. 7. Accordingly, the concerned respondents including respondent no. 6 - District Accounts Officer, Dhanbad shall ensure that final family pension amount of the petitioner is fixed and arrears of provisional family pension are also paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. So far as other claim in respect of death-cum-retiral dues of the deceased employee are concerned, if it is still outstanding and there is no other legal impediment, the same shall also be released within the said period along with statutory interest. So far as other claim in respect of death-cum-retiral dues of the deceased employee are concerned, if it is still outstanding and there is no other legal impediment, the same shall also be released within the said period along with statutory interest. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.