The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 922 of 2021 1. Sanjay Kumar 2. Prem Kumar 3. Praveen Kumar [substituted vide order dated 24.04.2024 passed in I.A. No. 6554 of 2022 after death of original writ petitioner Geeta Lal] - V E R S U S – 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. … … Petitioners of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The State Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. District Transport Officer, Ranchi 4. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Patna, Bihar 5. The Secretary, Transport Department, Patna, Bihar 6. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi 7. The Accountant General, Patna, Bihar … … Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioners : : For the Respondents For the State of Bihar :
Legal Reasoning
The issue fell for consideration before this Court in many cases and this Court has clearly held that in case of retirement or death of the employee, they are entitled for at least admitted dues without any delay. In this case, death occurred long back. Even admitted dues have not been extended to the concerned employee or his family members. It has clearly been held in catena of decisions that the responsibility for payment of entire amount shall be under head of the concerned department. In case of any dispute with regard to any of the claims, shall communicate to the concerned government servant. All the formalities like filing of the indemnity bond etc. have to be completed much before so that no inconvenience is cause to either of the parties. Nothing has been brought on record to show that any initiative was ever made. 12. It appears that the State is sleeping like phoenix. They have no care for the employees, particularly the retired one. This is a glaring example where State should be saddled with heavy cost. It has already been mentioned many a times that from the next date of hearing, if admitted dues are not paid, the State shall be slapped with heavy cost. 13. No affidavit has been filed by the State. I, hereby, direct the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority – Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi who shall consider the same and do the needful at the earliest. Since even admitted dues have not been paid to the petitioners, the same is directed to be paid with a cost of Rs.25,000/- in addition to his entitlement. It is made clear that the benefits, as claimed for, shall be released within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 14. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ
Arguments
xxx Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate I.A. No. 6554 of 2022 06/24.04.2024 Heard learned counsel for the respondents. None appears on behalf of the petitioners. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. I.A. No. 6554 of 2022 has been preferred by the petitioner for substitution of legal heirs from array of petitioner, as mentioned in para-2 thereof as the original writ petitioner Geeta Lal died on 23.04.2022. Learned counsel for the respondents does not object to the prayer. In view of statements made in instant interlocutory application, let necessary corrections be carried out in array of petitioners after deleting name of Geeta Lal from the array of petitioner. The names of legal heirs are mentioned in para-2 of the instant interlocutory application. Office to do the needful. I.A. No. 6554 of 2022 stands allowed. W.P.(S) No. 922 of 2021 It is case of the petitioners that their father (husband of the original writ petitioner) was appointed on 01.12.1958 in the office of Motor RC 1 Vehicle Inspector under the Transport Department as lower division clerk. Pursuant to the office order no. 1933, dated 22.02.1979, issued by the office of the State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, he was transferred to South Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi. However, for no fault on him, his joining was accepted in the office of District Transport Officer, Ranchi on 06.07.1979. Without any fault, he was not paid salary for the periods 01.03.1979 till 05.07.1979. During his service period, he wrote several letters to the department, but no heed was paid. During his service tenure, said Jiya Lal cleared all departmental examinations. Said Jiya Lal was to retire from the service as Clerk in District Transport Office, Ranchi on 31.01.1995 and as such office of the District Transport Officer, Ranchi, vide memo no. 73, dated 30.01.1995, wrote letter to the State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Patna for regularization of his service from 01.03.1979 till 05.07.1979 so that his retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. may be released and further prayed for payment of salary for the intervening period, but no heed was paid. After unblemished service of more than 36 years, said Jiya Lal retired on 31.01.1995. Though said Jiya Lal continued making correspondences with the authorities but nothing was done and he died on 17.05.2004. Thereafter, his wife Geeta Lal continued correspondences and was constrained to knock door of this Court after crossing more than 72 years of age. However, during pendency of the instant writ petition, without getting fruits of the instant writ petition, said Geeta Lal also died leaving behind his sons who have been arrayed as parties in the instant writ petition. It is case of the petitioners that till date not a single farthing has been extended to them and the original employee and his wife both died without getting benefits of retirement. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV representing State submits that entire documents are lying with the State of Bihar and therefore the amount could not be released. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel representing State of Bihar argues that entire amount has to be paid by the State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar has no role as deceased was lastly working in the areas now falling under the State of Jharkhand. 8. 9. RC 2 10. The concerned employee as well as his widow (original writ petitioner) represented several times for getting death-cum-retiral benefits but the same has not been paid. It is yet another glaring example as to how the employee and/or his family members are being harassed by mighty State. 11.
Decision
petition stands disposed of. RC 3 (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)