MOST. SABEYANI LUGUN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 30.09.2013, by which, respondent no. 3 directed respondent no. 4 to recover Rs. 2,99,760.00 from the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of salary of the deceased-employee and for quashing memo dated 17.10.2013 whereby respondent no. 4 directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount of Rs. 2,99,760.00 in treasury and further to pay balance amount of gratuity, leave encashment, G.P.F, G.I.C and to fix the family pension of the petitioner etc.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present writ application is that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Niral Lugun died on 14.11.2007 while he was posted as teacher in R.C. Primary School, Jaldega, Simdega. After death of her husband, the petitioner filed representation before respondent no. 3 for payment of retiral dues of her husband and to fix the family pension. Accordingly, the petitioner has been paid Rs. 4,82,060 towards provisional gratuity. Thereafter, impugned letter was issued directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,99,760/0 in treasury, as it is alleged to paid on the basis of wrong fixation of salary.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no fraud or misrepresentation has been committed by the petitioner or her deceased-husband and furthermore, the impugned order of recovery has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. It has further been submitted that the petitioner submitted series of representations to the authority concerned requesting to pay the balance amount of gratuity, G.P.F, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment etc and to fix the family pension of the petitioner but no heed has been paid to her representation, due to which, the petitioner is facing acute financial hardship. It has further been submitted that the husband of the petitioner died on 14.11.2007 thereafter the petitioner was facing acute financial hardship, as such, she took friendly loan from her relatives and on receiving the gratuity amount, she refunded the loan to her relatives and at present she has no source of income to refund the said amount to the government. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the judgment rendered in the case of W.P. (s) No. 1796 of 2003 dated 18.10.2008, the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment.