Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 70 (MEG)

Food Corporation of India v. Krushna Ch. Biswal

2018-10-10

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Review of the judgment dated 12.09.2018 is sought by the respondents No. 1 to 3 (employer of the writ petitioner) on the ground that the wife of the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition which is pending before the High Court of Orissa. 2. It is trite that review can lie only when an error apparent on the face of the records is noticeable. Now the question is as to whether there is any error apparent on the records. In view of the peculiar features precise flash back of the circumstances, which have persuaded the respondents (review petitioners) to seek review, are necessary to be noticed. 3. Wife of the writ petitioner Smti. Minati Biswal is stated to be living along with her children separately somewhere in the state of Orissa she had filed a writ petition WP (C) No. 2939 of 2014 before the Guahati High Court which stand disposed of on 24.03.2017. In the said petition Smti. Minati Biswal had prayed for direction so as to command the respondent Corporation to release two-third of the salary of the writ petitioner in her favour. The petition has been withdrawn on 24.03.2017 with liberty to file a fresh one. In fact, Smti. Minati Biswal during the pendency of WP (C) No. 2939 of 2014 had filed another petition WP (C) No. 18587 of 2016 wherein, she had contended that her husband (writ petitioner) is to retire in the month of February 2017, she shall be entitled to get two-third share of the retiral benefits. The said petition has been disposed of vide order dated 01.11.2016 directing the petitioner Smti. Minati Biswal to file fresh representation, on so filing the respondent Corporation was to consider the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the order dated 01.11.2016. 4. The representation as was filed by Smti. Minati Biswal has been rejected by the Corporation vide letter dated 24.08.2017 wherein, after examining the details it has been quoted as under, Since it is an inter-se family dispute, so the office of the undersigned without any order/s from any Competent Court of law regarding apportionment of terminal dues of Sri Biswal, cannot release any portion out of the same in favour of Smti. Minati Biswal. Prior to the passing of the order by the Corporation dated 24.08.2017, Smti. Minati Biswal. Prior to the passing of the order by the Corporation dated 24.08.2017, Smti. Minati Biswa had filed another petition WP (C) No. 12463 of 2017 before the High Court of Orissa on 23.06.2017 wherein again, Smti. Minati Biswal had prayed for deducting two-third amount from the retiral benefits of the writ petitioner with a further prayer that same to be disbursed in her favour. 5. The worry of respondent Corporation is that if they implement the judgment of this Court they may face some difficulty in contesting the case before the High Court of Orissa. 6. The judgment of this Court dated 12.09.2018 is clear and categorical to the effect that the retiral benefits including gratuity and CPF amount cannot be withheld, it is only then the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation had stated that the respondent Corporation will accord consideration to the representation of the petitioner and will take a decision regarding release of the retiral benefits in accordance with the rules, on such basis petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent Corporation to take decision regarding release of the retiral benefits including gratuity and CPF amount within a period of four weeks, in default the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount as shall be due to the petitioner. 7. During the lifetime of the retired employee, all retiral benefits have to be released in his favour except in case there is any direction to the contrary for withholding such amount. In case there would have been or would be a direction same has to be complied by the respondent Corporation. In view of the language of the order providing that the respondent shall take decision regarding release of the retiral benefits with a further condition that in default they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum, retiral benefits have to be worked out and settled finally. Release of the retiral benefits cannot be stopped at any cost unless of course, any direction to the contrary is passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. 8. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which would warrant recall of the order, however, it is made clear that in case any direction is issue by the High Court of Orissa on the petition filed by Smti. 8. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which would warrant recall of the order, however, it is made clear that in case any direction is issue by the High Court of Orissa on the petition filed by Smti. Minati Biswal, the Corporation shall be bound to abide by the same. 9. Disposed of as above.