Bombay High Court
Shila Niranjanrao Ombase vs The Chief Executive Officer Zilla ... on 4 October, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
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
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
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
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.
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.
