SOMWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Smt. Somwati, has been compelled to file this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for payment of unpaid dues of provident fund, gratuity, group insurance etc. of her husband, Late Manohar Lal Gangwar, who died on 21st August, 2005 but dues have not been cleared by the respondents till date despite repeated representations by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts in brief, giving rise to dispute in present writ petition, are that the petitioner's husband was working in the ministerial cadre in Mandi Samiti. On certain charges, a preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 11. 11. 1985 by President, Krishi Utpadan Samiti, Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur as a result whereof, he was placed under suspension on 21. 12. 1985. It is said that a first information report was also lodged against him. A departmental enquiry was initiated and it continued for about seven years. Ultimately, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 23. 3. 1993. The Deputy Director (Administration), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U. P. , Bareilly vide order dated 15. 4. 1993 reinstated him in service imposing a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect and a censure entry for the year 1985-86. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband continued to serve the department and died on 21. 8. 2005. Since his post death dues, namely, provident fund, gratuity, group insurance etc. were not paid by the respondents, the petitioner sent representation dated 22. 1. 2006 addressed to the respondent No. 3 stating that she is facing serious financial hardship due to sudden demise of her husband and non-payment of dues, therefore, the amount of provident fund, gratuity, group insurance etc. be paid at the earliest. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded to the Secretary, Krishi Uptadan Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit by the Regional Deputy Director (Administration) vide his letter dated 2. 2. 2006. Since no progress took place, the petitioner also sent reminder dated 7. 2. 2006 addressed to Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit. It is said that by letter dated 10. 3. 2006, the petitioner was informed by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit that a sum of Rs. 3,165/- was outstanding against the petitioner's husband and there is some other dues as per audit objection of the year 1985-86 and, therefore, no-dues certificate cannot be issued. The Secretary also sent a similar information to the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 10. 3. 2006. The petitioner vide letter dated 31. 3. 2006 requested the respondents to clear the outstanding dues of her late husband since her daughter was to marry on 29. 5. 2006 and a similar request was made to the Director, Mandi Samiti vide letler dated 20. 4. 2006, but of no avail. However, the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit vide letter dated 25. 4. 2006 again informed the petitioner that due to balance of Rs. 3,165/- against the petitioner's late husband and also on account of audit objection of the year 1985-86, no-dues certificate cannot be issued. The respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 4. 5. 2006 communicated the respondent No. 2 that a sum of Rs. 2,74,417/- is due towards provident fund of Late Manohar Lal, Head Clerk. However, he informed that since some of Mandi Samities where Late Manohar Lal was posted had not furnished 'no-dues certificate' and, therefore, the payment of provident fund could not be cleared. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12. 5. 2006 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), however, sanctioned payment of Rs. 2,74,417/- towards provident fund of Late Manohar Lal and directed for payment thereof to the petitioner, but he further said that in case, there are some outstanding dues against Late Manohar Lal, such amount may be adjusted before making the said payment.

(3.) FOR the first time, the respondent No. 5 by letter dated 17. 5. 2006 informed that the petitioner's husband has taken house loan advance of Rs. 31,400/- against which 3,165/- towards principal sum and 31,531/- towards interest was outstanding which was to be realized from the outstanding dues of Late Sri Manohar Lal. He further informed that there were some deficit in the stock worth Rs. 2,78,598/-, which was to be recovered from Late Sri Manohar Lal and was subject-matter of audit objection of 1985-86, but since no final decision could have been taken therein, therefore, the amount of provident fund etc. could not be paid. He, however, requested the respondent No. 4 to realize the entire amount from the outstanding dues of Late Sri Manohar Lal. The respondent No. 4, consequently, vide letter dated 23. 5. 2006 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount as mentioned in the respondent No. 5's letter dated 17. 5. 2006 so that the outstanding dues of petitioner's late husband may be 1 cleared. He again vide letter dated 25. 5. 2006 required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,13,294. 65 as mentioned in the respondent No. 5's letter dated 17. 5. 2006 so that no-dues certificate may be issued by the respondent No. 5 and the outstanding dues of the petitioner's late husband be cleared. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 26. 5. 2006 stating that so far as the amount of house loan advance and interest thereon is concerned, the same may be deducted from the amount of provident fund due for payment. However, she disputed the demand of Rs. 2,78,598. 65 stating that in the last almost 16 years, no such demand has ever been raised when her husband was alive and after his death, demand of such amount was clearly unjustified and illegal. Since the respondent failed to make any payment, the petitioner had filed this writ petition,