Jaymanti Devi v. The State of Jharkhand & ors
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 541 of 2010 Jaymanti Devi .… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & ors. .... Opposite Parties With Civil Review No. 30 of 2012 Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna through its Administration and another .… Petitioners Jaymanti Devi & ors. Versus --------- .... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL For the Petitioner (In Cont. Case No. 541/10) --------- For the State of Jharkhand For the B.S.R.T.C. 09/Dated: 17 th May, 2013 --------- : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate : J.C. to G.A. : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate 1. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that earlier original petitioner had preferred W.P. (S) No. 3683 of 2004 which was finally
Decision
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12th March, 2010 and the direction given by this Court in paragraph 8 is yet to be complied with by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation submitted that the services of the original petitioner, namely, Krishna Nandan Singh was terminated on 10 th March, 2003 , original petitioner expired on 10 th June, 2005 and the date of superannuation of the original petitioner was 31 st March, 2010. 3. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation further submitted that there is an error in paragraph 8 of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition because this Hon'ble Court has directed that the original petitioner was entitled to salary from the date of termination till the date of superannuation, but, in fact the original petitioner has expired in between and, therefore, Civil Review No. 30 of 2012 has been preferred and, therefore, the same may be taken up for its final hearing because they have already brought cheque of Rs. 6,38,140/- for the payment of all the dues from the date of termination of the original petitioner till the date on which he expired. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly accepted that there cannot 2 be an order of payment of salary from the date of termination till the date of superannuation because the original petitioner has expired in between. Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection if the Civil Review No. 30 of 2012 is taken up for its final hearing today because his client who is applicant in the contempt case, is a widow of the original petitioner. 5. Thus by the consent of the counsel for both the sides, the Civil Review No. 30 of 2012 is taken up for its final hearing because both parties have agreed. There is some factual error in paragraph 8 of the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court dated 12th March, 2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3683 of 2004. 6. The Civil Review application has been preferred by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna, Bihar. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for both the sides, who have jointly submitted that the date of termination of the original petitioner, namely, Krishna Nandan Singh was 10th March, 2003, he expired on 10th June, 2005 and his date of superannuation was 31st March, 2010 and, therefore, paragraph 8, which gives salary even after the death of the original petitioner, may slightly be modified and salary may be ordered to be paid from the date of termination till the original petitioner expired. 8. Paragraph 8 of the order dated 12th March, 2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3683 of 2004 shall now be replaced as: “8. Considering the above facts, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The petitioner has already expired on 10th June, 2005 during the pendency of this writ application, the concerned authorities of the respondents are directed to treat him in continuous service from the date of his termination from service till the date on which he has expired and to compute all the consequential monetary benefits payable in the account of the employee and to pay the same through the employee's surviving widow who has now been substituted in place of the petitioner in this writ application. The compliance of the above directions must be made by the concerned authorities of the respondents at the earliest from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 9. The aforesaid paragraph 8 of the order dated 12th March, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 3683 of 2004 is hereby replaced and now this will be treated as part and parcel of the order. 3 10. Accordingly, the Civil Review No. 30 of 2012 is, hereby, allowed and disposed of. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant namely Jaymanti Devi submitted that the son of the applicant, namely, Ashish Kumar Singh expired on 23rd September, 2012. Thus, cheque of the legally payable amount may be paid by account payee cheque in the name of Jaymanti Devi. 12. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submitted that following cheques are ready in the name of Jaymanti Devi: Sl. No. Bank Name Dated Cheque No. Amount 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. State Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi 16/05/2013 246105 State Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi 16/05/2013 246107 State Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi 16/05/2013 246109 State Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi 17/05/2013 171149 Bank of India, Patna Bank of India, Patna 08/05/2013 023207 09/05/2013 023216 45,884 27,056 35,410 88,405 75,552 46,765 13. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submitted that following cheques are ready in the name of Ashish Kumar Singh: Sl. No. Bank Name Dated Cheque No. Amount 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. State Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi 16/05/2013 246106 45,883 State Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi 16/05/2013 246111 27,056 State Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi 16/05/2013 246110 35,409 State Bank of India, Doranda, Ranchi 17/05/2013 171150 88,405 Bank of India, Patna Bank of India, Patna 08/05/2013 023208 75,551 09/05/2013 023217 46,764 14. The aforesaid cheques in the name of Jaymanti Devi has been received by the learned counsel for the applicant in the contempt case and he is acknowledging the same. For rest of the amount, though cheques are ready, but, it requires some correction because son of the widow has already expired, as stated hereinabove and, therefore, now cheques are required to be altered. 15. For the purpose of changing the name of the party to whom the amount is paid, the matter is adjourned to be listed on 21 st June, 2013 . 16. Personal appearance of the officer, namely, Shri Uday Singh Kumabat, as per order dated 12th April, 2013 is hereby waived till further order. Ajay (D.N. Patel, J.)