Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 175 (JHR)

Jhuman Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2020-01-29

S.N.PATHAK

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Widow of the deceased Anand Mahto, retired Master, Board Middle School, Silli has knocked door of this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay due pension of Rs.89,100.00 with interest, arrears on gratuity and other pensionary benefits on account of sixth pay revision since 01.01.2006. 3. As per the factual matrix, petitioner’s husband Late Anand Mahto retired from the Board Middle School, Silli, Ranchi as a Headmaster on 31.01.2006 and died on 04.05.2011 at his native place. It is case of the petitioner that all the pensionary benefits were paid to her except arrears of 6th Pay Revision since 01.01.2006 and an amount of pension of Rs.89,100/- in spite of Authority Slip and Sanction Letter for grant of 6th Pay Revision issued by the office of the Accountant General on 12.12.2010. After his death, petitioner has been granted family pension but the same has not been calculated as per benefits accrued under the 6th Pay Revision nor the arrears unpaid to the deceased is being paid to her. The sanctioned amount and pension is being paid to the petitioner through State Bank of India, Muri Branch in her account no. 31898841270. Petitioner time and again represented before the Branch Manager to do the needful for payment of arrears and also to fix family pension accordingly but till date nothing has been done and as such instant writ petition has been filed for grant of relief. 4. Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that this case is a glaring example of highhandedness at the instance of State Bank of India. Learned counsel argues that the government had sanctioned the amount and sent it to the State Bank of India, which was duly received on 12.01.2001, which is apparent from Annexure-B Series of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on 27.01.2020 but surprisingly the same has been denied by the State Bank of India Headquarter at Ranchi. Learned counsel submits that widow who is running from pillar to post to get her legally admitted dues, has been denied the same and as such respondents authorities who are responsible for the delayed payment should be awarded with a heavy cost. 5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. 6. Mr. Learned counsel submits that widow who is running from pillar to post to get her legally admitted dues, has been denied the same and as such respondents authorities who are responsible for the delayed payment should be awarded with a heavy cost. 5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. 6. Mr. Subham Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – State fairly submits that from the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State, it is apparent that the amount has been sanctioned and sent to the headquarters to be remitted to the concerned Branch of the Bank at Muri. Learned counsel further submits that it is crystal clear from the sanction letter that the said amount has been received by the State Bank of India which cannot be denied. 7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India submits that the State Bank of India has not received said letter and as such the same could not be remitted to the concerned Branch of the Bank at Muri. Lerned counsel submits that however if a fresh copy is given, the entire exercise will be done within a period of one week and payments will be made to the petitioner. 8. Be that as it may, having heard arguments of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the view that admittedly petitioner has been harassed at the hands of the respondents – Bank for eleven years. State Bank of India was sitting tight over the matter and amount was not paid to the widow. When this Court called upon the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Ranchi, plea has been taken that officer has resumed his duties only six months back. Neither any step has been taken by this officer regarding payment of arrears amounting to a sum of Rs.89,100/- nor it has been communicated to the concerned Branch of the Bank at Muri. This is a glaring example how a widow has been harassed to get her legally admitted dues at the hands of respondents – Bank and the same is not permissible in a welfare State where every step is being taken for women empowerment,. 9. This is a glaring example how a widow has been harassed to get her legally admitted dues at the hands of respondents – Bank and the same is not permissible in a welfare State where every step is being taken for women empowerment,. 9. In view of facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court directs the respondents – Bank to pay the amount within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The amount shall carry a cost of Rs. 1 Lac. to be paid by State Bank of India, Headquarter at Ranchi. The Bank shall enquire the matter as at whose instance the delay was caused and after fixing the responsibility on the concerned officer, shall recover the same from his salary. Let it be made clear that if amount is not paid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, the amount shall carry interest of 10% from the date of receiving of the said documents from the State. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.