PRABHA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satish Chandra Jha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Himanshu Kumar, learned A.C. to Govt. Advocate No. 5.

(2.) The petitioner after having come to know regarding deduction of Rs.99,858/- from the gratuity amount represented before respondent No. 4/ Dy. Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Patna praying therein to direct the concerned Officer to release the deducted amount. The petitioner in the present writ petitioner has annexed the said communication contained in Memo No. 1984 dated 27.10.2006 as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda to the Treasury Officer, Nalanda for deducing the amount of Rs.99,858/- from the gratuity amount. The petitioner thereafter learnt on receipt of Memo No. 7649 dated 19.10.2007 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda that her husband was shown absent from 11.3.2003 to 27.12.2004, for which earned leave of 210 days, half earned leave of 368 days and extraordinary leave of 79 days i.e. total 657 days were sanctioned.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present writ petition has asserted that the husband of the petitioner was all along on duty and while serving, he died on 27.12.2004. It was asserted that during the said period, the husband of the petitioner was already functioning. While the husband of the petitioner was posted in Biharsharif Court, he was seriously ill and due to serious ailment, he was carried to Patna Medical College & Hospital and after release from there, he joined his duty in the Police Line, Nalanda. However, on 27.12.2004 he died while serving at Police Line, Nalanda. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the death of her husband, without affording any opportunity of hearing the Respondent No. 5 without ascertaining the fact that the husband of the petitioner was already on duty in illegal manner passed order for deducting the amount of Rs. 99, 858/- on the plea that earlier salary was paid to the petitioner's husband, whereas he was shown absent for the said period. It was submitted that after the death of her husband on such unsustainable plea, no deduction order was required to be passed in the year 2006, whereas the death of her husband had occurred on 27.12.2004. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that no recovery was required to be made without affording any opportunity of hearing has referred to number of case law reported in Ram Autar Agarwal v. Reserve Bank of India and another, 1997 2 PLJR 857Ram Knmar Bharati v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, 2010 1 PLJR 113and Satyanarayan Lal v. Bihar State Electricity Board.,2010 1 PLJR 347It has further been argued that no deduction can be made from the amount of gratuity and in the present case, the recovery has been affected from the amount of due gratuity of her husband. Accordingly, it has been prayed to direct the Respondents to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 99,858/- along with interest.