Kalyani Devi vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.N. Mishra, J.—In this wit application under Articles 226 and 228 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Respondent to pay the retrial dues, namely, final pension and gratuity to the original writ Petitioner who retired as Section Officer from the services of the Health Department on 31st December. 1982. It is stated that the relevant papers for payment of legal dues were submitted on 15.1.83 before the Respondent authority. It appears that the provisional pension amount was paid for two years which was subsequently stopped for the reasons best known to the authority concerned. According to the learned Counsel, the admitted legal dues payable to the Petitioner has not been paid so far though he retired as far back as in December, 1982. Reference may be made to the various orders passed from time to time and particularly the order dated 26.6.94 by which a Division Bench of this Court directed the State Respondents to pay the admitted legal dues to the Petitioner. It is submitted that the said order has not been complied with as yet.

In this case, counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Respondents and on behalf of the Accountant General. Mere perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Respondents it appears that the liability to pay the retrial benefits is not being denied. However, it is stated that the provisional pension for the period from January, 1993 to March, 1993, has been withdrawn and was kept for disbursement to the Petitioner but since he did not appear, such money has not been paid. It is surprising as to why the amount was withdrawn by the State Respondents and kept with themselves in order to pay the same to the Petitioner. This is the novel method which is adopted by the State Respondents in this particular case. Admittedly, authority slip was issued in favour of the retired employee, on the basis of which the payments are made. In this case the amount has been withdrawn by the State Respondents themselves for the reasons best known to them and even the amount withdrawn in the year 1993, has not been given to the Petitioner, as it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Accountant General it appears that no doubt sanction order has been received and pursuant thereto authority slip was issued after adjusting of Rs. 56,506.50 which has been advanced to the Petitioner by way of house building loan. From the facts stated above, it stands admitted that even the admitted legal dues has not been paid to the Petitioner as yet inspire of the judicial order passed by this Court. Till date nothing has been paid to the Petitioner so far although the sanction order and the authority slip alleged to have been issued by the respective Respondents.

in that view of the matter, I direct, the State Respondents that if the amount has not already been paid, in that event, fresh sanction order must be issued within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and forwarded the same to the Accountant General who will issue fresh authority slip within two weeks there from. As directed by this Court earlier, the State Respondents will simultaneously serve a statement showing the amount sanctioned on different heads and if the Petitioner still feels aggrieved it will be open to her to file a representation before the Respondent authority, who will heap the representation of the Petitioner and will dispose of the same by a speaking order, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court, as early as possible, preferably within three weeks from filing of such representation. Pursuant thereto, if the claim of the Petitioner is found to be genuine, further sanction order must be issued forthwith and forwarded the same to the Accountant General, who will issue authority slip within two weeks there from. Since the original Petitioner retired as far back as in December, 1982 and even the admitted amount has not been paid till date and it is more distressing that during the pendency of this writ application he died and his widow has been substituted in his place, she is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of respective payments along with cost which is assessed at Rs. 2500/-. Both interest and cost shall be paid to the Petitioner along with the principal amount within the time aforesaid.

Before I part with this case, I may observe that the State, if so advised, may realize the amount of interest and cost from the officers found responsible for delayed payment.

In the result, this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.