JAYANTI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the widow of late Daya Nand Sharma who was an employee of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and died in harness on 15.9.2004. The writ application has been filed for payment of amounts due to petitioner 'slate husband including terminal benefits. A counter affidavit has been filed which is being returned as it has not been properly stamped to be filed by tomorrow in the Registry and would be kept on record as such. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that petitioner 'shusband was found guilty of defalcation of about Rs. 6,37,932/ - which was orderd to be deducted from his salary at the rate of 50% of his salary till the amount was adjusted including recurring interest on the outstanding defalcated amount. It is stated that though the petitioner 'shusband died on 15th September, 2004, on 30.9.2005, the outstanding against the petitioner 'shusband was reported at Rs. 1,23,296/ - with further interest of Rs. 2,94,801.66 totalling to Rs. 4,18,097.66. Then what is stated is that the salary due to be paid to the petitioner on account of 5th pay revision was Rs. 1,70,151/ - and total amount payable under leave encashment was Rs. 63,104/ -, on account of gratuity, it was Rs. 211,606/ - all of which have stood adjusted against the dues aforesaid by letter dated 12.4.2006.

(2.) FIRST , in relation to the aforesaid stand, I may point out that the calculation, as sought to be given by the Corporation, is on the face of it, quite arbitrary. The adjustments and liabilities have to be balanced as on the date of the petitioner 'shusband 'sdeath that is as on 15th September, 2004. The simple reason for that is if the Corporation intends to charge interest on delayed refund by petitioner then it must equally pay interest for the delayed payment of the terminal benefits. Thus, either the Corporation should credit the salary account, leave enacashment account and gratuity account with interest at the same rate at which they are charging under the recoverable head from the date of petitioner 'shusband 'sdeath till the date of adjustment or they should strike a balance of what was due from the petitioner 'shusband on the date of his death and adjust the same amounts as on that date. This exercise afresh the Corporation would have to do immediately. Prima facie if this calculation is done, it would be found that it is Corporation that has to still pay money after full adjustment to the petitioner. Now we come to the second major dispute. That is with regard to what is stated in paragraph -12 of the counter affidavit. It is stated that petitioner 'shusband had taken advance of Rs. 5,34,838/ - but bills to the extent of Rs. 4,07,305/ - were submitted and payable and, as such, Corporation still claims accounts for Rs. 1,27,533/ -. In paragraph -13 of the writ petition, it is stated and not denied that petitioner 'shusband had submitted bills worth Rs. 9,17,001/ - as far back as in 1997 -1999 and the Corporation is admitting that only bills worth Rs. 7,21,211/ - has been submitted as would be apparent from Annexure -3 series being communication of the Corporation dated 5.9.2005. It is in 2005, that is after six years and more than a year after petitioner 's husband 'sdeath, it is being disclosed that there are defects in the bill submitted and, as such, it could not be processed but once the writ petition has been filed, bills worth Rs. 4,07,305/ - have been accepted. This reflects extremely poor attitude of the Corporation. While the petitioner 'shusband was alive and in a position to account for he was not asked to explain or account nor the bill submitted by him were verified though he had submitted bills exceeding the advances and, as such, was entitled to be paid by the Corporation. Once he died then first none of the bills were held to be verifiable but then when the writ petition was filed, bills worth Rs. 4 lacs were found to be verified. What were the defects in the rest of the bills or shortcomings has neither been disclosed in the counter affidavit nor disclosed to the petitioner though at this stage even the petitioner is not in a position to explain because her husband is no more. In my view, having not confronted petitioner 'shusband with the rest of the bills for necessary correction, the respondent -Corporation cannot be permitted to enforce payment in regard thereto. They let the matter hang without resolving the dispute and let the petitioner 'shusband die. That part has to die with the petitioner 'shusband and cannot be enforced.

(3.) SO far as group insurance is concerned, it is stated that the claims of petitioner has been forwarded in the year 2006. Neither copies of letters nor details of those letters or the amount payable therein have been disclosed in the counter affidavit.