Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 547 (JHR)

Sharda Devi v. Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University

2016-04-04

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
ORDER : The petitioner is the wife of Mundrika Mishra, an employee of respondents, posted as Accountant, designated as Sectional Officer (General & Accounts) working in G.L.A. College, Daltonganj, has prayed for quashing the order issued by the respondent no.2 dated 30.06.2003 withdrawing the earlier order dated 22.01.1996 by which the Head Clerk and Accounts working in different constituent colleges were designated as Sectional Officer (General and Accounts) and as further prayed for quashing the order dated 16.09.2002, communicated by the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondents to refund the deducted amount of Rs.1,48,000/- with interest. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application is that Ranchi University, Ranchi, issued order vide memo dated 22.01.1996 granted pay scale of Rs. 1540-60-2600-75-2900/-as provided in the Vth pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and payments started from salary of January, 1993 as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The husband of the petitioner died on 02.05.2001. After death of the husband of the petitioner, the post retiral benefits were granted to the petitioner by deducting Rs. 1,48,000/-on the ground that designated post of sectional officer vide office order dated 22.01.1996 has been withdrawn vide office order dated 30.06.2003, as per Annexure-2 to the writ application. It has further been averred in the writ application that the husband of the petitioner has worked as a sectional officer till his death i.e. on 01.05.2001 and thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondent authorities for refund/payment of the deducted amount of Rs.1,48,000/-on 26.02.2009 and 06.07.2010, vide Annexure-3 series to the writ application. 3. Per-contra, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents repelling the contentions made in the writ applications. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that the husband of the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted at GLA College, Daltongunj, a constituent unit of the Ranchi University. In a constituent college, the posts available are of Head Clerk, Head Accountant and the admissible pay scale in the 5th revised pay is of Rs.1500-2750/-. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that the husband of the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted at GLA College, Daltongunj, a constituent unit of the Ranchi University. In a constituent college, the posts available are of Head Clerk, Head Accountant and the admissible pay scale in the 5th revised pay is of Rs.1500-2750/-. By a notice dated 27.02.2003, the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi, called upon Sri Mudrika Mishra to explain as to why the notification dated 22.01.1996 be not withdrawn as wrongly allowed the designation of Section Officer (Accounts) as per Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit and only after notice to the affected persons the respondent Ranchi University issued the office order dated 30.06.2003. It has further been submitted that the husband of the petitioner was not entitled to receive the higher scale of pay of Rs.1500-2750/-admissible to him the excess amount of salary paid to him has been recovered. 4. Rejoinder has been filed to the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by decision in the case of Kanhaiya Mishra and Others Vs. Ranchi University and Others reported in 2014 (3) JCR 237 Jhr. as per Annexure-R/1 order dated 06.03.2014, and also it has been submitted that the Chief Secretary of the State, Government of Jharkhand vide order dated 06.07.2009 directed all the Principal Secretaries, Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and other officers of the State not to arbitrarily recover or deduct any amount from the employees concerned in the name of excess payment without following the due procedure of law or in violation of statutory provisions as per Annexure-R/2 to the rejoinder. 5. Heard Mr. Krishna Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 at length and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Kanhaiya Mishra and Others Vs. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 at length and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Kanhaiya Mishra and Others Vs. Ranchi University and Others (Supra) and the petitioner in the said judgment the impugned order dated 30.06.2003 has been quashed and this Court has been pleased to inter-alia direct that it would be open for the University to make a requisition before the State Government requisitioning funds for the aforesaid purpose for grant of benefits of the said posts to the petitioner. On receipt of such requisition, the Directorate of Higher Education, department of Human Resources Development in turn shall release the requisite funds for onward payment to this petitioner within a reasonable time. 7. Learned counsel for the University is fairly submitted that the case of the petitioner may be disposed of in the light of the aforesaid order. 8. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to that course of action. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the husband of the petitioner who was re-designated as sectional officer by virtue of office order dated 22.01.1996 continued in the said post dated 02.05.2001 on which he died. After death, the petitioner has been running from pillar to post to get retiral benefits from which an amount of Rs.1,48,000/-has been deducted purportedly in pursuance to Annexure-2 to the writ petition where the benefit accruing to the husband of the petitioner has been withdrawn by the respondents by office order dated 30.06.2003. The very same issue has already been decided by this Court in the aforesaid case. Therefore, it would be apposite in the interest of justice to dispose of this case with a direction to respondents in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the University and State to confer the benefits of the post of sectional officer in the prescribed scale to the deceased husband of the petitioner from the effective date as sanctioned by the order at Annexure-1. It would be open for the University to make a requisition before the State Government requisitioning funds for the aforesaid purpose for grant of benefits of the said posts to the husband of the petitioner. On receipt of such requisition the State of Jharkhand, Secretary, H.R.D (Higher Education), in turn shall release the requisite funds for onward refund of the recovered amount to the petitioner within a reasonable time preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of this copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.