Allahabad High Court
Smt. Prema Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 July, 2023
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138229
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9494 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Prema Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aalok Singh,Bheem Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Bheem Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
2. Petitioner, who is a widow of late Jai Singh, is aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hathras, whereunder an amount of Rs. 15,58,089/- has been directed to be recovered from the gratuity amount of late Jai Singh which had remained unpaid until that date.
3. It is argued by Sri Bheem Singh that after the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 24.08.2020, the then District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hathras had directed under his order dated 05.06.2021 for payment of entire amount of gratuity and also forwarded papers for pension to the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Agra.
4. It appears that while pension amount was released, the gratuity amount remained withheld subsequently and petitioner was made to run from pillar to post. Petitioner's husband was working as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhihari and therefore, fell in Group - C category and that an utter harassment was meted out to the bereaved family, they could do nothing further in the matter. It is on 06.12.2022 when the order of recovery came to be passed on account of some wrongful fixation of pay of late Jai Singh that the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. The grounds raised in the petition were many fold, right from violation of principles of natural justice to the right of recovery against a dead person from terminal dues and that too who was a group - C employee and reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334. This Court entertained this petition and passed following order summoning the District Panchayat Raj Officer to explain and justify the order of recovery, on 29.05.2023 fixing 12.07.2023 as under:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the respondent no.3-District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hathras by which an amount of Rs.15,58,089/- has been deducted from the gratuity of husband of petitioner.
3. It has been submitted that the husband of the petitioner has died in the year 2020 and no recovery for any excess payment made to him during the service period can be recovered from gratuity of husband of the petitioner. It is further submitted that no notice and opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the order impugned.
4. In such view of the fact, let the respondent no.3-District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hathras appear before this Court and explain as to how he can justify the order dated 16.12.2022 recovering an amount of Rs.15,58,089/- from the gratuity of husband of the petitioner, on the next date fixed next date.
5. List this case on 12.07.2023 in top ten cases."
6. Miss Subodh Joshi, who happens to be the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hathras currently, has put in appearance today along with an application supported with an affidavit seeking exemption from personal appearance. In the affidavit, certain documents have been appended including the order dated 08.03.2023 passed by the officer concerned directing the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension to release the amount of Rs. 15,58,089/- in respect of her late husband in favour of petitioner forthwith an amount under recovery and those documents appended as Annexure No. 9 show that the amount stood credited into the account of the petitioner.
7. Thus, it is pleaded before the Court that the entire recovery proceeding is rendered otios in view of the payments so made.
8. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the petitioner, he does not dispute the payment made. Upon a specific query being made to officer concerned who is present today in Court, she explained that she very innocently proceeded upon the decision taken by some committee earlier constituted to examine the fixation of pay and it is upon recommendation of that committee that a decision came to be taken by her to recover the amount. However, in the process the officer explained to the Court that she was absolutely mislead by the Accountant in the office and so she has given him a warning of action if he did not correct himself in future. The officer has offered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the petitioner as well as to the Court and undertakes before the Court that in future she will ensure to discharge her administrative duty taking absolute care.
9. It is a case where a widow has been made to run and has been forced to the unnecessary litigation despite clear judgment of Supreme Court, however, in the matters of group - C and D employees recovery should not have been ordered after the retirement or death and it is a case where late employee had died in harness and during his lifetime no such proceeding was undertaken. While the Court is taking lenient view in the matter to condone the act and conduct of the officer in passing the order of recovery against a dead person from his terminal dues, the Court is of the view that equity would get balanced if the petitioner is also paid interest upon the delayed payment of gratuity amount which has remained withheld for the last three years.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents shall make payment of interest upon withheld amount from the date of death of the husband of petitioner until 08.07.2023. The amount of interest shall be calculated as admissible in law and shall be paid within next 60 days' time. It is made clear that any further delay in the payment will result in further adding of interest.
11. In view of the above, personal appearance of the officer concerned stands exempted in the case and notices issued to her also stand discharged.
12. Petition thus stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023
IrfanUddin
