Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21083 of 2012 ====================================================== Sushila Devi, Wife of Late Deo Narain Thakur (Retd. Headmaster), resident of village-Gosain Tol, P.O. - Kewalpatti, District Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar Versus 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director (Primary), Human Resource Development Department, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 5. The Accountant General of Bihar, Mahalekhar Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 6. The District Programme Officer (Then District Superintendent of Education), District Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s
Legal Reasoning
: Mr.Ugranath Mallik, Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.N.Shahi, AAG-10 For the Accountant General: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 5 17-12-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “… for quashing the memo no. 1382 of 05.12.2000 issued from the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna under which the husband of the petitioner’s pay scale has been fixed after his retirement at lower level and a direction has been given to recover the excess amount from the petitioner’s husband and also letter no. 4389 dated 19.12.2001 issued under the signature of the then District Superintendent of Education now District Programme Officer, Madhubani directing the Treasury Officer, Madhubani to deduct the excess amount of about Rs. 59806/- from the pension of Rs. 1,01,240/- 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.21083 of 2012 (5) dt.17-12-2013 2 / 4 (from Feb.2000 to Sep. 2001) on the basis of which a sum of Rs. 59806/- has been deducted by the Treasury Officer from said pension amount without any information to the petitioner’s husband and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the above said deducted amount to the petitioner and further for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order, directions directing the respondent to fix up the retirement dues of her husband on the basis of pay fixation and payment of salary made to the petitioner’s husband before retirement and make payment of the retiral dues accordingly”. When this case was heard earlier and the stand of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani was found to be unreasonable inasmuch as such recovery from a person, who had retired from service and in fact had died, was impermissible in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani by an order dated 25.11.2013 was asked to appear in person and explain as to why he should not be held liable to pay compensation for not only for not properly assisting this Court by filing a counter affidavit but also creating an untoward situation for the widowed petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, Mr. Vinod Kumar Vimal, District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani had appeared in person on 02.12.2013 and had submitted that he would personally ensure that all the retiral benefits of the deceased-husband of the petitioner would be settled in accordance with law. Today, Mr. Vinod Kumar Vimal, District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani once again having appeared in person, has filed a supplementary counter affidavit wherein in Paragraph nos. 3 to 7, he has given a detail stand of the steps taken by him for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, which reads 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.21083 of 2012 (5) dt.17-12-2013 3 / 4 as follows:- "3. That vide letter no. PEN-13-911 dated 12.12.2013 the respondent no. 6 has received communication from the office of the respondent no. 5 indicating therein that the pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the last pay drawn of 11250/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) vide P.P.O. No. 341906 dated 01.04.1999 in course of the pension revision. 4. That vide the said letter is has also been communicated that authority letter for pension of pension and gratuity has also been issued vide office ID No. PEN09121314783/341906 dated 12.12.2013 for 11395/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Five only). 5. That in terms of the above-mentioned communication the respondent no. 6 has written a letter to the Treasury Officer, Madhubani vide memo no. 5350 dated 12.12.2013 requiring him to make payment to the petitioner in terms of the authority letter as issued by the respondent no. 5. 6. That the payment of the revised pension in terms of Annexure-A to this Counter Affidavit shall be made to the petitioner immediately. 7. That the respondent no. 5 has also directed for making payment of 59,806/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Six only) to the petitioner which had been deducted on account of excess pension having been paid to her husband." 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.21083 of 2012 (5) dt.17-12-2013 4 / 4 As would be apparent from the aforesaid averments that though certain decisions have been taken but actual payment of the same including the refund of recovered of amount of Rs. 59806/- has not been made as yet. Mr. P.N.Shahi, learned AAG-10, having obtained instruction from the Treasury Officer, has submitted that now the amount has been sought to be sent to the bank account of the petitioner. In the aforementioned background and events taking place during the pendency of this writ application, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani to ensure that whatever amount has been sanctioned or found to be payable by him to the petitioner, its actual payment to the petitioner must be ensured within a period of one week from today. Having regard to the fact that the present District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani has joined only in the month of April, 2013 and has also done his bit to redress the grievance of the petitioner, the issue relating to imposition of payment of cost against him is dropped taking into account of the facts and circumstances of this case. With the aforementioned observation and direction
Decision
this writ application is disposed of. The personal appearance of Vinod Kumar Vimal, District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani is also dispensed with. Sujit/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)