Bhagwati Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3609 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    W.P.(S).No. 1256 of 2021

             Bhagwati Devi, wife of Late Gosain Oraon                   ... ... Petitioner
                                          - VERSUS-
       1.    The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project
             Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
       2.    Deputy Commissioner, Gumla.
       3.    Director, I.T.D.A. having its office under P.O. and P.S. - Gumla, District -
             Gumla.
       4.    Block Development Officer, Dumri, District - Gumla.
                                                                 .........         Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State: Mr. Achyut Keshav, GP-I

05/27.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Widow has knocked door of this Court assailing the letter no.

1438/ I.T.D.A., dated 31.07.2017 by which the respondents have ordered to adjust an amount of Rs.3,59,555/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Five only) from pensionary benefits of her deceased husband who had already retired on 31.07.2012 as Block Welfare Officer, Chaibasa and died on 18.06.2018. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release the entire legally admissible due under the heads of commutation of pension, gratuity and other dues along with arrears with statutory interest.

3. As per factual matrix, as has been delineated in the writ petition, petitioner's husband was working as a Block Welfare Officer, Dumri and superannuated as such from the District of Chaibasa on 31.07.2012. While posted as a Block Welfare Officer, Dumri, petitioner's husband had received fund for disbursement of Scholarship amongst the students and the same had been disbursed after attestation by the concerned school teacher amongst the students. It was alleged that a sum of Rs.96,55,000/- was received by the deceased husband of the petitioner in the head of welfare scholarship but as per register, only a sum of Rs.92,95,445/- was adjusted

by him and after adjustment, a sum of Rs.3,59,555/- remained unadjusted. Thereafter, petitioner's husband was served with a letter dated 31.07.2017 whereby a direction was made to recover the said amount even after his retirement by debiting the amount from his pensionary benefits.

4. It is specific case of the petitioner that even arrears of pension, gratuity, commutation of pension and other amount have not been paid to her on the ground that a sum of Rs.3,59,555/- was lying due against her deceased husband. During his life, petitioner's husband represented before the respondents but they did not pay any heed over the same and slept for almost five years. Petitioner's husband died on 18.06.2018 and after his death, the respondents are bent upon to recover the amount from pensionary benefits and as such, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing the petitioner assiduously argues that action of the respondents in recovering amount from pensionary benefits of legal heirs of a deceased employees is not justified rather not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that it is not permissible in the eyes of law to recover any amount from the pensionary benefits after retirement or at fag end of service of an employee. In the instant case, the amount is to be recovered from pensionary benefits of the legal heirs of the deceased employee. Learned counsel further submits that in spite of settled proposition of law, due to highhandedness on part of the respondent-authorities, a widow is being harassed. Learned counsel further submits that it is impermissible in the eyes of law to recover any amount from the legal heirs of deceased employee.

6. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the Judgments passed in cases of N.D.P. Namboodripad (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Union Of India & Ors, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 502; State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334; Vidyawati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2017) 4 JBCJ 160 (HC).

7. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed.

8. Mr. Achtyut Keshav, learned counsel representing respondents-

State vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that recovery is totally justified. The amount of State cannot be allowed to be taken away by anyone in illegal and arbitrary manner. Learned counsel further argues that the amount was to be disbursed for the scholarship to benefit the poor students pursuing studies and it was deceased employee who did not adjust an sum of Rs.3,59,555/- and as such, the amount has to be recovered from his retiral dues, even if he died. Referring to 43-A of the Pension Rules, learned counsel submits that as per said Rule, the amount can be recovered and adjusted from the pensionary benefits also whenever there is a loss to the State Exchequer and whenever it talks about the misconduct on part of the employee.

9. Be that as it may, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that a widow has been harassed without any rhyme and reason and without any plausible explanation by the respondent- authorities. The contention of the respondents regarding adjustment of the said amount, in absence of any record brought before this Court, is not acceptable. Admittedly amount has been ordered to be recovered from the legal heirs of the deceased-employee. It is not a case that deceased- employee misrepresented and justified the amount, that it is not recoverable. On several occasions representations were filed by the deceased employee as the entire family was suffering due to non-payment of retiral dues after his retirement.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N.D.P. Namboodripad (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Union Of India & Ors, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 502 held that, "if any excess payment has been made to the deceased appellant, it shall not, however, be recovered from the Legal Representatives of the deceased appellant". If at all deceased husband of the petitioner had committed anything wrong, it was open to the respondent-State to proceed against him in accordance with law but nothing has been done and a plea

has been taken to recover and adjust the amount, from the legal heirs of the deceased. It is apparent fault on part of the respondents who, in spite of representation filed by the deceased, did not adjust the amount and as such,a widow at her old age cannot be made to suffer.

11. In view of settled law, any adjustment and recovery from the legal heirs of the deceased employee is not permissible in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled for arrears of pension which has been illegally withheld by the respondent-authorities.

12. Under such circumstance, the impugned letter no. 1438/ I.T.D.A., dated 31.07.2017 by which the respondents have ordered to adjust an amount of Rs.3,59,555/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Five only) from pensionary benefits of her deceased husband, is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to pay entire benefits accrued to the petitioner in view of death of her husband i.e. fixation of pension, gratuity, provident fund amount and any other benefits, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for delayed payment, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Current pension shall be released in favour of the petitioner within aforesaid period of eight weeks.

13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/k