JAIMANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is widow of late Sidhnath Singh, who was an Assistant -teacher in Government School, Durbdiha, Bhojpur. Her husband on his appointment as Assistant teacher joined the said School on 1.1.1979 and later died in harness on 5.6.1988, leaving behind the widow along with her two minor sons. It is claimed that after the demise of her husband, petitioner filed all relevant forms/documents required for family pension, gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment dues before the Headmaster of the said School (Respondent no. 5) who recommended and forwarded all the documents to Respondent no. 2 for necessary action long back on 4.9.1989 vide Annexure -1 & 2. Respondent no. 2 sanctioned Rs. 96,000/ - as Group Insurance money of the deceased husband of the petitioner which she received in the year 1989. She, however, fell ill and could not pursue the matter with respect to other retirement -cum -death benefits. On 8.2.1991 she filed representation for payment of the entire dues vide Annexure -4, and later went to the office of Respondents for early payment and also for her appointment on compassionate ground, but she was simply assured. She also filed several representations including before the District Education Officer, Bhojpur (Respondent no. 2), but all went in vain, which compelled her to file the present writ application.

(2.) DESPITE service of notice on Respondents represented by the learned Advocate General long back on 13.8.1999 neither any counter affidavit was filed nor the Respondents acted promptly for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner. On 26.4.2000 this Court having realised the agony of the widow, who was made to suffer for almost 12 years adjourned the matter for day after tomorrow with a direction to the District Education Officer, Bhojpur (Respondent no. 2) to produce necessary sanction order with respect to the entire admissible dues, failing which he was directed to appear before this Court. Thereafter the matter, however, could be taken up only on 19.5.2000 when a counter affidavit sworn by Respondent no, 2 was filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 to 4.

(3.) A reply affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it is alleged that the Respondent have tried to mislead the Court and harass the petitioner. It is alleged that Respondent no. 2 had laid lame excuses that for the first time he came to know about the aforesaid case on 24.4.2000. After the letter dated 22nd December, 1988, contained in Annexure -A Respondent no. 5 recommended all the documents along with his letter on 4.8.1989 vide Annexure -2. Petitioner has asserted that all the relevant papers along with photograph were submitted by her in the year 1989, which is clear from Annexure -1 series of the main writ application. It is further stated that again on 2.5.2000, brother of the petitioner, namely, Jitendra Singh submitted all the documents to Respondent no. 5 vide Annexure -8 annexed to the said reply affidavit. As a matter of fact, all the relevant documents which are necessary - for payment of retirement -cum -death benefit are before Respondent no. 2 but he only with a view to harass her and to save his skin has taken the said excuses in the counter affidavit. It is stated that all the bills contained in Annexure -E, F and G were prepared on 4.5.2000, but Respondent no. 2 sat over the matter for ten days and made false statement that the Bank draft will be obtained on 15th May, 2000, which has not been received by the petitioner till date i.e. 19.5.2000. Respondent no. 2 has malafide shifted his responsibility upon Under Secretary for non -payment of GP.F. It is stated that the petitioner has always fully cooperated and the plea taken in regard to non cooperation is malafide and only with a view to save his skin.