SOBHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 14.06.2013 issued by respondent no.3 directing to respondent no.4 to withheld Rs.4,30,670/ - from the gratuity amount sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and for direction to respondents for payment of gratuity, pension, arrears of pension and other admitted retiral dues along with statutory and penal interest.

(2.) As delineated in the writ application is that the husband of the petitioner died -in -harness on 04.03.2012 while continuing as typist in the office of Minor Irrigation Division, Jamtara after rendering more than 33 years of services. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, she applied for post retiral benefits before the competent authorities. The petitioner had received the general provident fund amount, group insurance amount and leave encashment amount. Although, the pension and gratuity of the petitioner has already been sanctioned by the office of Accountant General on 14.03.2013 and 15.03.2013 as evident from Annexure -2 to the writ application, the same has not been paid to the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted representations before the respondent no.2 and pursuant to the representations directed the respondent no.3 to make all necessary payment to the petitioner. But to the utter surprise and consternation, the respondent no.3 by the impugned order letter dated 14.06.2013 has directed to the Treasury Officer, Deoghar (respondent no.4) withheld the payment of Rs.4,30,670/ - from the gratuity amount. Being aggrieved by the impugned letter, the petitioner approached this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.

(3.) Mr. Arbind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondents are bereft of jurisdiction on authority withheld the gratuity and pension when on the death of husband there is no departmental or criminal proceeding pending against the deceased husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents authority had no authority to withhold the amount when the same has already been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the Accountant General vide Annexure -2 to the writ application. In order to butress his point, the petitioner has referred to Full Bench decisions as reported in 2008(1) JLJR 486 in the case of Most. Sumitra Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand through Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department and Others wherein this Court by following the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2007) 4 SCC 502 has been pleased to observe that the recovery from legal representative of deceased employee i.e. alleged excess payment cannot be made from the legal representative of the deceased employee.