DHEERAJ KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the legal heirs of late Hare Krishna Lal, who was accountant in Saharsa Municipality and died in harness on 1.3.1999. This application has been filed by the petitioners for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to make payment of retiral dues of their late father relating to earned leave, gratuity, provident fund, arrears of bonus and increment. Further prayer, is for a direction to respondent No. 4, Life Insurance Corporation of India, to make payment of group insurance with interest.

(2.) Petitioner No. 2 son of Hare Krishna Lal was appointed on compassionate ground in Saharsa Municipality after the death of his father. He made the grievances for payment of death-cum- retiral dues of his father. No action was taken by the special officer, Saharsa Municipality. As such, he approached the respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Saharsa , for payment of retiral dues and in turn the District Magistrate, Saharsa, by his letter dated 24.8.2000 directed the special officer to take necessary steps for redressal of his grievances, Even then no payment was made by respondent No. 3. Since money was urgently needed for marriage of petitioner No. 3, the present application has been filed by the petitioners. The Life Insurance Corporation of India by letter dated 15.2.2000 has communicated that only premium amount of Rs. 8,000/- is payable for which a cheque has already been issued to Saharsa Municipality. Life Insurance Corporation of India has taken the plea that policy lapsed in the year 1999 itself on account of non-payment of premium in due time. Petitioner's stand is Life Insurance Corporation as well as Municipality have adopted an arbitrary approach by withholding legal dues of their father payable to them.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 has taken a stand that the GPF with interest and gratuity were offered to petitioner No. 2 who refused to accept it taking the plea of pendency of this writ application. The cheque sent by the Life Insurance Corporation of India amounting to Rs. 8,000/- was also offered but it was refused by petitioner No. 2. It has also been stated by respondent No. 3 that petitioners' father had taken loan from his provident fund account as per audit report and after deducting that amount, the remaining amount was offered to petitioner No. 2 but the same was refused. Respondent No. 3 is ready to offer that amount to the petitioner.