Om Prakash Vishwakarma vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2006 seeking payment of death-cum-retrial dues of his father, who died in harness on 24.01.1981 while working as Health Inspector at Primary Health Centre, Rajmahal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner is the only son of the deceased employee, whose mother also died in the year 2001 without getting any family pension and as such, the petitioner made a claim for payment of GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment of 29 days and Family Pension since 24.01.1981 to 2001 i.e. till the death of his mother.

In the order dated 29.03.2011, it has been recorded on the basis of statement made in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the petitioner has been paid group insurance worth Rs. 12,000/- vide bank draft dated 27.01.1981 and GPF amounting to Rs. 2763/- on 08,06.2000 and an amount of Rs. 6852/- under the head gratuity and pension has been forwarded to the Treasury Officer, Rajnagar, Sahibganj for payment. It was also indicated that his application for compassionate appointment had been rejected by the Chief Medical Officer on the ground that the petitioner was a minor.

It appears that by the said order the petitioner was directed to file supplementary affidavit giving details of the amount which is due against the State. However, it does not appear that the petitioner has filed any affidavit giving such details of the due amount.

It further appears that the respondent-Chief Medical Officer had passed a reasoned order, which has been brought on record as Annexure-C series to the supplementary counter affidavit by the respondent no. 5 dated 16.03.2001 wherein the claim of the petitioner has been considered and payments, which were due to him and were paid, indicated therein. The petitioner, however, has not filed any affidavit thereafter as indicated in the order dated 29.03.2011 showing any further details of amount due to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is atleast entitled to Family Pension together with interest till the death of his widow mother. The petitioner also claims statutory interest upon GPF amount paid to him.

In these circumstances, it appears that admissible dues of the petitioner have been paid by the respondent authorities. The stand has not refuted on behalf of the petitioner. If the petitioner has any further claim for grant of statutory interest over GPF or for further claim of Family pension, he may approach respondent authorities with proper representation containing all necessary facts and supporting documents to substantiate his case. The concerned respondent authorities shall consider his representation in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. I.A. No. 405 of 2012 also stands disposed of.