Disposed

Pramila Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Oct 2014CWJC/14867/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this income-tax writ, the Patna High Court directed the Collector of Katihar to re-examine the quantum of work done by the deceased husband against an advance of Rs 14,58,810/-. The Court ordered a final decision on retirement benefits and family pension within four months, balancing recovery of public funds with the widow's entitlements.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Collector of Katihar to examine the work done by the husband against the advance and decide on the final retirement benefit and family pension within four months.

Pramila Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14867 of 2011

¶3

====================================================== Pramila Devi W/O Late Yadu Nandan Prasad R/O M/H-Kalibari, Binodpur, Katihar, P.S. Katihar Town, Distt.-Katihar. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Distt. Katihar. 3. The Additional Collector, Distt. Katihar. 4. The Block Development Officer, Kursela, Distt.-Katihar. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Katihar. 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Dr. Anshuman, SC14 For the Accountant General: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Adv.

¶4

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶5

4 20-10-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:

¶7

“Directing the respondent to pay the arrears of pension from August, 2008 to 10.2.2011 as the deceased employee Yadunandan Prasad died on 11.2.2011 and grant family pension to the petitioner and also pay the amount of Leave Encashment and arrears of GPF and salary of deceased employee due from June, 2005 to July, 2008 and other retiral dues if any to the petitioner and also direct the respondents to extend the monetary benefit of ACP to the petitioner.”

¶8

At the outset this Court must find that having regard to

¶9

the facts of the case as also the subject matter of the writ

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.14867 of 2011 (4) dt.20-10-2014

¶11

¶12

application being confined to retirement benefit there would be no question of going into the issue of grant of ACP to the husband of the petitioner on whose behalf the petitioner, his widow, has filed this writ application. The husband of the petitioner in fact was found to have not accounted for a sum of Rs.14,58,810/- which was given to him by way of advance for completing certain work and therefore, such a person misappropriating such a huge sum will never be entitled for grant of ACP. In any view of the matter, ACP not being the part of the retirement benefit this Court would not like to say anything more.

¶13

Coming now to the issue of payment of retirement benefit Mr. Bhola Prasad rightly relies on the averments made in the writ application that if the husband of the petitioner was asked to execute certain work and for which he was given an advance of Rs.14,58,810/- the authorities were under obligation to at least make the petitioner aware as to whether the entire advance amount was misappropriated by her husband or at least he was entitled for set off the amount for which the work was already completed by him. Mr. Prasad has however submitted that repeated requests of the petitioner to get information on this score has been proven to be of no avail and therefore, this Court should at least direct the authorities to reconsider the actual amount which the petitioner‟s

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.14867 of 2011 (4) dt.20-10-2014

¶15

¶16

husband could not refund after drawing advance of Rs.14,58,810/In other words, he wants that the respondents should re-examine the quantum of work done by the husband of the petitioner as against advance paid to him and if certain amount of work is found to have been done by him, credit of that much work in terms of the money by making a correct measurement and evaluation should be done which may lessen the liability of the petitioner towards advance of Rs.14,58.810/-.

¶17

This Court however does not find any answer to the aforementioned submission of Mr. Prasad in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit all that has been said is that a sum of Rs.14,58,810/- was recoverable from the husband of the petitioner and since the total amount of arrears of leave salary and arrears of salary came to Rs.1,19,088/- and Rs.4,08,127/- the same being much less than Rs.14,58,810/- has not been paid despite being its drawn from the Treasury. This may not be actually the correct way of deciding the claim of a widow who is not aware as with regard to the actual state of affairs of the advance taken by her husband.

¶18

As a matter of fact this Court would also find from LPC, as contained in Annexure „A‟ dated 21.5.2008, that certain recovery was also sought to be made from the provident fund of the husband of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.710/- per month as

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.14867 of 2011 (4) dt.20-10-2014

¶20

¶21

also Rs.30/- per month from the group insurance amount. A further recovery was sought to be made from the petitioner of Rs.2,14,800/- on the head of SGRY and a sum of Rs.56,310/- on the head of NSP and SSP schemes. A further recovery of Rs.56,810/- was to be also made from the petitioner towards advance. All these figures of recovery probably are part of Rs.14,58,810/- and therefore, someone has to seriously consider the defence of the petitioner that her husband has not misappropriated the entire amount of advance rather had executed the work though not to the tune of amount of advance of Rs.14,58,810/-.

¶22

The widow today after the retirement of her husband on 31.7.2008 and death on 11.2.2011 is left to fend her entire future only on the amount of retirement benefit of her husband that may become available to her and as such, the authorities will be required to look into the matter with some more seriousness so that the petitioner at least gets due amount on all head of retirement benefit to which her husband was entitled even after setting off the amount of advance taken by him.

¶23

Considering all these aspects this Court would direct the Collector of Katihar District to get the matter examined by a competent authority and thereafter take a firm and final decision

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.14867 of 2011 (4) dt.20-10-2014

¶25

¶26

with regard to the amount payable, if any, to the petitioner both by way of arrears of salary and retirement benefit of her husband as well as family pension to her. This exercise however must be completed under direct supervision of the Collector of Katihar district within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶27

Before parting with, this Court would clarify that while recovery of the public fund from the husband of the petitioner and also from the petitioner is well permissible but no capital should be made out of the death of the husband of the petitioner so as to deprive the petitioner being a widow from the legitimate amount that she would be entitled to get by way of retirement benefit of her husband.

¶28

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

¶29

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶30

surendra/-

¶31

Pramila Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpana Kumari Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Authorised Officer Cum Branch Manager State Bank Of Inida Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Barhwa Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Most. Salgi Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ajay Engicon Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nathuni Mian Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.