MOST INDIRA SETH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is widow of late Shiv Shankar Seth, who died on 17.7.1997 while posted as Assistant Engineer, N.R.E.P., Jhanjharpur. The Parent Department of the deceased employee was Road Construction Department and he was posted in R.E.O. on deputation at the time of his death. After the death of her deceased husband, petitioner was paid only the amount of Group Insurance and with respect to the remaining post retiral dues, she learnt that the office of the Executive Engineer had forwarded the necessary papers to the office of the District Magistrate - cum - Collector, Madhubani, where the matter was held up, which compelled her to file the present writ application on 18.12.2000. Her husband left behind the petitioner as widow, two sons and one married daughter.

(2.) THIS matter was heard for the first time on 19.12.2000, when on the request of the learned Standing Counsel No. X appearing for the Respondents, matter was adjourned to 5.1.2001 to enable him to produce necessary sanction order for payment of the entire dues of the widow - petitioner. Thereafter the matter was passed over on five occasions, but no sanction order was produced. This Court deprecated the action of the State officials in the order dated 12.1.2001 as the widow was kept deprived for the death -cum -retiral dues for the last three and half years. However, as a matter of last indulgence, the matter was adjourned to 16.1.2001 for final disposal. On 16.1.2001 counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the District Magistrate -cum -Collector, Madhubani and Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P., Madhubani (Respondent nos. 5 & 6), and second one on behalf of State of Bihar through Secretary -cum -Commissioner, Road Construction Department (Respondent no.1) and third one on behalf of Accountant General (Respondent no. 8). After going through the affidavits and hearing the parties this Court found that there was gross negligence on the part of the different authorities in dealing with the claim of death -cum - retiral dues of widow -petitioner, whose husband died long back on 17.7.1997. However, the sanction order for pension and gratuity were produced, but the dues relating to provident fund and leave, encashment were not paid to the petitioner. A plea was taken that payment of provident fund amount was to be made by the District Provident Fund Officer and with respect to leave encashment the authorisation was required to be issued by the Finance Department and ultimately the same are to be paid by the District Magistrate, Madhubani. This Court expressing shock over such plea as all the said authorities are officials of the State, directed for personal appearance of the Finance Commissioner, District Magistrate, Madhubani and District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani on 19.1.2001. Three further affidavits were filed -one on behalf of the Secretary, Road Construction Department, second on behalf of District Magistrate, Madhubani and third on behalf of District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani. However, no affidavit on behalf of Finance Commissioner was filed. It was stated by the learned standing counsel that the Director, Provident Fund has also instructed him that he would be filing affidavit, but no affidavit had come till that day. Accordingly, on the prayer made, learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to add Finance Commissioner and Director, Provident Fund as Respondent nos. 9 & 10 respectively and adjourned the matter for 24.1.2001 with an observation that in case full payment of the dues are made to the petitioner, personal appearance of the officers shall not be required on the next date.

(3.) THIS Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the petitioner has been paid uptodate statutory interest on the provident fund amount and fairly agreed that the details of the calculation can be furnished to the petitioner, if she approaches the District Provident Fund Officer. As regards penal interest and cost, learned Standing Counsel submitted that as the officials of the State have taken prompt action since this Court has issued direction and the dues of the petitioner have been paid, this Court may rake lenient view of the matter and refrain from awarding any penal interest and cost.