RADHA DEVI Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the respondents having not paid the death -cum -retiral benefits, on the other hand having decided to recover the penal rent and electrical energy charge from widow ''petitioner, the writ petition was preferred.

(2.) THE husband of petitioner late Ramyad Thakur was in the services of the Bihar State Electricity Board (the Board for short). After 25 years of his service on the ground of absence from duty for 37 days, his service was treated to be terminated under the then CIause -24 of Standing Order vide order dated 24.4.1983. Against the said order, Sri Thakur moved before the authorities, which remained pending and he ultimately died on 26.6.1995. In the meantime, the family continued to remain in occupation of the Board 'squarter. The petitioner, after death of Sri Thakur moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 6030/95 and challenged the order of termination. In the said case, Board appeared and offered to pay family pension of their own. In such background, petitioner also agreed not to press the petition for remaining grievance, except the relief for compassionate appointment of her son. It was brought to the notice of this Court that till the order of termination persists, the son may not get compassionate appointment. However, such apprehension was not accepted by this Court when disposed of the case on 17.9.1996 with following observation :

(3.) IN pursuance of Court 'sorder, the original record relating to termination of deceased employee was produced. From the said record, it appears that vide Memo no. 475 dated 23.3.1983, the A.K.K., Supply Division, Hajipur asked explanation from him relating to absence from duty, giving reference of Ciause -24 of Standing Order. Another notice was issued on 26.3.1983 to which it appears that late Thakur submitted explanation. It further appears that the explanation was not accepted and Memo no. 55 was issued on 9.4.1983 to explain as to why action under C!ause -24 be not taken. The same followed by order of termination dated 20.4.1983. From the file, it appears that late Ramyad Thakur represented against the termination and took specific plea that he was on duty during the alleged period of absence. The Elec. Ex. Engg. asked him to produce evidence on 8.10.1983 vide his letter no. 1997 dated 5.10.1983. He was asked to appear on subsequent dates including 7.11.1983 as evident from letter no. 2067 dated 17.10.1983. It appears that inspite of his appearance and production of evidence, no final decision was taken on appeal, as evident from letters dated 21.10.1983 and 29.11.1983 of late Ramyad Thakur. The matter remained pending and enquiry on appeal continued even thereafter will be evident from Junior Engineer 'sletter no. 280 dated 14.12.1985 and reminder of late Ramyad Thakur given on 30.6.1993. However, no final decision was taken till Ramyad Thakur died in 1995. Thereby one can understand the delay in moving the Court by widow when she moved for the first time in 1995.