Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 4339 of 2009 ====================================================== Mostt Savitri Devi, widow of late Raj Kishore Pandey, resident of village – Bherokhara, PS – Tajpur, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1 The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2 The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Samastipur 4 The District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur 5 The District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur, District – Samastipur 6 The District Education Officer, Samastipur 7 The Headmaster, Middle School, Fatehpur, Sarayranjan, Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Siyaram Pandey, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Manoj Kumar Singh, AC to GA 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 08-04-2013 Petitioner’s husband retired as Assistant Teacher on 31.01.1995. On 20.03.1997, he died. Petitioner, being widow, has been running from pillar to post for settlement of retiral dues of her husband as well as payment of arrears of salary for the period 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973. This writ petition was filed in 2009 and authorities did not sympathize with her plight. A counter affidavit was filed only on behalf of the District Provident Fund Officer stating that payment was authorized in respect of refund of provident fund with interest upto July, 1995. It was stated that she was not entitled to interest beyond six months from
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.4339 of 2009 (5) dt.08-04-2013 the date refund was due inasmuch as application for refund of GPF 2 was received from her only in July, 1999 as per Annexure E to the counter affidavit of the District Provident Fund Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in paragraph 10 of the writ petition itself, it was stated by the petitioner that her husband had made application for refund of GPF while he was alive and soon after his retirement. As noted above, he died on 20.03.1997. Thus, there is an apparent conflict with the stand. In my opinion, the affidavit of the District Provident Fund Officer is not correct and at the same time partially correct. The reason is if we refer to Annexure 4 series, it has one letter written by the District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur to the District Education Officer, Samastipur dated 11.02.1997. That letter clearly states that the District Superintendent of Education is seeking details from the District Education Officer as to the provident fund deposits of the petitioner’s husband having retired, the same had to be refunded to him. This clearly shows that petitioner’s husband’s application for refund of GPF was already before the authorities who were acting upon it prior to 16.01.1997 itself. This is consistent with petitioner’s stand that her husband had made the application in his lifetime and is inconsistent with the stand that application was Patna High Court CWJC No.4339 of 2009 (5) dt.08-04-2013 received in the year, 1999. The stand in the counter affidavit is 3 correct to the extent that the petitioner did make an application in the year, 1999 because prior to that, application was made by her husband. A helpless widow is told to file fresh papers. She did it. That does not take away the right if the fact is accepted that the husband had made the application itself much earlier. Authorities are deliberately trying to mislead the Court and deprive the petitioner of her right to receive interest for the delayed refund. Today, the District Programme Officer (as he is now known as), who was formerly the District Superintendent of Education, has filed an affidavit after this Court had directed his personal appearance. In the counter affidavit filed today, it is admitted that arrears of salary for the period 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973 is due and payable. The principal amount is said to be Rs 1,296/-. There has been a delay in payment thereof only by way of a period of 40 years. This has been directed to be paid to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6%. Why 6%, it is stated
Legal Reasoning
that Division Bench of this Court in one case has so ordered. In my view, grant of interest, which is more by way of compensation, is discretion of the Court. There cannot be binding precedent in this regard moreso where the delay in payment of statutory dues is to the extent of period of 40 years Patna High Court CWJC No.4339 of 2009 (5) dt.08-04-2013 which is shameful. 4 Learned counsel for the State states that in fact this relates to the salary which was due to the petitioner’s husband as an Assistant Teacher of a taken over School which, in 1973, had to be deposited in his provident fund account which was an interest bearing account. That was not so done. Thus, in my view, petitioner would now be entitled to refund of this amount alongwith statutory interest that was payable every year on the provident fund accumulations and not flat at the rate of 6% per year. In this counter affidavit, it is stated that so far as GPF prior to November 1976 is concerned, which would be GPF for the period 1961-1976, records are yet to be verified. What, in other words, State says is that as a consequence of bifurcation of the district in 1970, records have not been verified even though 40 years have gone by. Again, a very shameful state of affairs. For this may be petitioner may have to wait another century because if 40 years was not enough to settle this matter, Court wonders how long it would take. Considering the facts aforesaid and the inordinate delay already made, I direct the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar as well as the Patna High Court CWJC No.4339 of 2009 (5) dt.08-04-2013 Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of 5 Bihar to ensure that the full amount of GPF for the period prior to 1976 in respect of the petitioner’s husband be paid to the petitioner with proper calculations within a period of three weeks from today. It may be noted that this matter is pending with the authorities since 1997 upon the application of petitioner’s husband. Now coming to the last part of petitioner’s claim, which is for payment of interest from the date of retirement of the petitioner’s husband to 1999 when allegedly petitioner made an application for refund of GPF. As noted above, the stand of the State that there was no application for refund of GPF prior to that, has been found false by this Court. Annexure 4 series would itself show that refund of GPF was being processed in 1997 itself when petitioner’s husband was alive. In such circumstances, petitioner would be entitled to interest for all periods of delay including the four years’ period from August, 1995 to May, 1999. It would be the responsibility of the District Progrramme Officer to ensure its payment within a period of three weeks from today. The interest payable would be at 8% per year. Interest would be the next that would accrue on the provident fund. Patna High Court CWJC No.4339 of 2009 (5) dt.08-04-2013 6 Thus, with the directions aforesaid, this writ
Decision
petition is finally disposed of. It shall be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the State to communicate the order of this Court to all the authorities for timely compliance. In view of the inordinate delay in settlement of retirement benefits forcing the petitioner-widow to come to this Court, an additional cost of Rs 10,000/- shall be paid to her by the State through the District Programme Officer within the said period. M.E.H./- (Navaniti Prasad Singh)