1 WP.3294.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3294 OF 2016
Shila Niranjanrao Ombase,
aged about 52 years,
R/o Durga Nagar, Simbhora
Road, Morshi, Tq. Morshi,
District Amravati. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
2) The Agricultural Development
Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Amravati, Distt. Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. M.A. Vaishnav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 4, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R.GAVAI, J).
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent.
2] The petitioner by the present petition impugns the
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2016 00:52:33 :::
2 WP.3294.16
communication dated 10.6.2016 vide which the family pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner has been directed to be credited to the account of the Zilla Parishad till the entire amount of Rs.7,74,209/- is not recovered by the Zilla Parishad.
3] It appears that the husband of the petitioner was working in the Zilla Parishad as Village Development Officer. It appears that when he was in service, a communication came to be addressed to him on 4.7.2011, thereby informing him that an amount of Rs.3,48,682/- is recoverable from him. He was, therefore, directed to credit that amount in the account of Gram Panchayat, Pusla within a period of seven days.
He was also addressed by the said communication that if he wanted to give an explanation with regard to the same, the same should be given within a period of seven days.
4] The husband of the petitioner immediately addressed a communication to the officer of the Zilla Parishad on 20.7.2011 thereby specifically denying the allegations against him. He submitted that the amount so determined was without conducting any enquiry and without conducting any measurements. He specifically submitted that if the entire measurements are done in his presence, he would be in a ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2016 00:52:33 ::: 3 WP.3294.16 position to satisfy that the recovery was unsustainable. Though a detailed representation was submitted by him on 14.11.2014, unfortunately, it appears that the husband of the petitioner died on 12.8.2015. After the death of the petitioner, the impugned communication came to be issued on 10.6.2016.
5] An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent Zilla Parishad. It is stated in the reply that the husband of the petitioner was posted as Village Development Officer at Shirkhed Gram Panchayat.
The perusal of the reply would reveal that the contents in the reply are totally foreign to what is stated in the impugned order. Undisputedly, no enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner's husband and he has not been found to be guilty of any of the charges. Unfortunately, the petitioner's husband died during service without the enquiry being conducted. It could thus be seen that the impugned order which directs the family pension and the amount of gratuity and other terminal benefits to be diverted to the account of the Zilla Parishad without there being any finding of guilt against the petitioner's husband would be unsustainable in law.
6] However, we find that the learned Counsel for the petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2016 00:52:33 :::
4 WP.3294.16
also admits that in so far as the payment to be made to the Bank is concerned, the same is not disputed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 10.6.2016, except the one with regard to the payment to be made to the Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Amravati of an amount of Rs.2,12,200/-, is quashed and set aside.
7] The respondents are directed to pay all the terminal benefits to the petitioner on account of the death of the petitioner's husband after deducting an amount of Rs.2,12,200/- to be payable to Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Amravati within a period of three months from today.
Needless to state that the arrears of family pension shall also be paid within the aforesaid period. However, the respondents are directed to start paying the family pension admissible to the petitioner regularly from 1.11.2016.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
J.
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2016 00:52:33 :::
5 WP.3294.16
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order".
Uploaded by : Ki. Jeswani, Uploaded on : 5.10.2016.
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2016 00:52:33 :::