DURGESH NANDINI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application is widow of late Sushil Kumar Singh, who was Principal in Jagdamb College, Chhapra, then under the control of Bihar University now Baba Sahab Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur. The husband of the petitioner retired from service on 31 -1 -1991 and ultimately, he died on 26 -1 - J992 without finalisation of is pensionary benefits. Petitioner in terms of general directions of this Court in the case of Rukmini Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1996(2) P.L.J.R. 348, sent legal notice long back on 14 -9 -1996 (Annexure -3) to the Vice -Chancellor, Finance Officer and the Registrar of the said University but the claim was not considered and disposed of in terms of the said general directions.

(2.) Earlier a criptic counter -affidavit was filed on behalf of the said authorities of the University without giving any details about the amount found payable to the petitioner after the death of her husband or the amount if any paid in that regard for which this Court deprecated the manner and attitude of the said Respondents in dealing with such matter, where a widow has been harassed for over several years so much so that she has to file this writ application for the redressal of her legitimate grievance.

(3.) Having regard to the facts that the general directions of this Court was not complied, this Court directed the said authorities to appear before this Court and file their show cause on 23 -8 -1999 as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against them and they be not adequately punished for not complying with the general directions of this Court. However, this Court further directed that if the order of this Court is complied, the personal appearance of the respondents shall stand dispensed with. After grant of repeated indulgence, the Vice -Chancellor considered the grievance of the petitioner and disposed of the legal notice vide order dated 21 -8 -1999, contained in Annexure -D, in which he alleged that the matter relating to the petitioner's grievance as well as the orders of the Hon'ble Court was brought to his knowledge only on 16 -8 -1999. It is further stated that undue delay caused in disposal of petitioner's grievance submitted through local notice dated 14 -9 -1996, while his predecessor was in office, is regretted. He has further summarised the grievance of the petitioner as follows: