The High Court disposed of an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order. The Single Judge had quashed the recovery of gratuity withheld from the estate of a deceased tubewell operator, initiated after his death. The superior court upheld the quashing.
The appeal within time and the appeal were rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.95 of 2018 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7374 of 2014
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Smt. Prem Shila Devi, Wife of late Maheshwar Sah (Ex Tubewell Operator), Village+P.O.- Chapra Megh, P.S.- Mushari, District Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nasrul Huda Khan, SC 1 Ms. Babita Kumari, JC to SC 1 For the Respondent/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
This appeal was filed with certain defects. In view of the order that we propose to pass in appeal, we find expedient and in the interest of justice to ignore the defects and proceed with the appeal. The stamp report defects, therefore, stand removed.
Patna High Court LPA No.95 of 2018(5) dt.26-11-2018 2/3
Re.: I.A. No.418 of 2018
Heard learned counsel for the State. The cause shown in support of this application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. The application is allowed. The appeal shall be treated to be within time.
Re.: L.P.A. No.95 of 2018
The learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the widow of an ex- Tubewell Operator has quashed the recovery of Rs.1,60,697/- that had been withheld from the amount of gratuity payable to an employee on an allegation of certain items reported to be missing at the time of the superannuation of the employee who had also died. The proceedings for deducting the said amount were admittedly initiated after the death of the employee on 22nd December, 2010. This fact is not disputed by the appellants.
The question raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that keeping in view the relevant provisions, the order for withholding the amount recoverable does not suffer from any infirmity and for which reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Chandri Devi versus The State of Bihar & others, reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 372.
We have considered the submissions raised and we
Patna High Court LPA No.95 of 2018(5) dt.26-11-2018
3/3
find that such issues came to be considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others , reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 933. The said judgment exhaustively deals with the provisions as also the judgments on the issue and we find that in the instant case, the proceedings having been initiated after the death of the employee do not appear to be supported by an appropriate sanction in law by the competent authority. Apart from this, the amount is a petty amount and this Court in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction would not interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge keeping in view the fact that substantial justice has to be done, more so in the case of a widow, who should not be permitted to litigate this appeal for such a petty amount. The prayer for exercise of any such discretion and interference with the learned Single Judge’s decision is refused.
Rejected.
(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ)
(Anjana Mishra, J)
Sunil/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Satisfaction Court may initiate proceedings to recover unpaid gratuity amount from an employee's family estate after the employee's death.
Whether the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction may interfere with the Single Judge's order quashing the recovery of a petty amount from a widow.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandri Devi versus The State of Bihar & othersReferred¶26
1999 (2) PLJR 372
Arvind Kumar Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and othersExplained¶30
2018 (2) PLJR 933
State of Bihar and others
Smt. Prem Shila Devi
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Anjana Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
