MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a widow, is aggrieved of order dated 10.11.2008 by which a direction was issued for recovery of the amounts withdrawn/retained by her husband, from the death-cum-retiral dues payable to her.

(2.) At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that this is the 5th proceeding by the petitioner in this Court, seeking payment of death-cum-retiral benefits.

(3.) Briefly stated, husband of the petitioner while working as Junior Engineer under the Irrigation Department died in harness on 08.01.2002; cause of death was cancer. More than three years after the death of her husband when family pension and other post-retiral benefits were not paid to her, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2404 of 2005. This Court issued a specific direction, vide order dated 14.06.2005, to the respondents to release the admitted death-cum-retiral dues to the petitioner, together with statutory interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of order dated 14.06.2005. The writ petition stood disposed of by the said order; this order was not challenged and it became final. However, direction of the Writ Court was not complied by the respondents and on an allegation that husband of the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.1,43,5100 from his GPF account in excess to what was deposited by him and he had failed to adjust Rs.3,53,012.33, vide memo dated 05.05.2006 the respondents intended to recover the aforesaid amounts from the death-cum-retiral dues payable to the petitioner. Order contained in memo dated 05.05.2006 was in the teeth of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2404 of 2005. The order contained in memo dated 05.05.2006 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 755 of 2007 which was allowed by an order dated 207.2007. Still, when the respondents did not pay death-cum-retiral benefits to the petitioner, she was constrained to file Contempt (Civil) Case No. 699 of 2007. In the proceeding of the contempt case, a statement was made on behalf of the respondent-State that death-cum-retiral benefits to the petitioner have already paid to her. The stand taken by the respondent-State in Contempt (Civil) Case No. 699 of 2007 was not only incorrect, the respondents made a false statement before this Court for which they are liable to be prosecuted.