Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Amina Begum vs State Of J&K & Ors on 7 February, 2022
Page |1
S. No. 46
Final hearing
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
OWP No. 506/2007
Amina Begum
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr.N.A. Tabasum, Advocate.
V/s
State of J&K & Ors.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Asifa Padroo, AAG for R 1, 2
& 4.
Mr. T. M. Shamsi, ASGI for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY JUDGE
ORDER
07 .02.2022
1. The short controversy involved in the present petition is that the husband of the petitioner namely Abdul Rashid Lone was serving in the Police Department as Selection Grade Constable whose GP Fund case was processed by the Department after his sad demise in cross firing on 16.5.1995 at Ajas Bandipora; that an amount of Rs. 38920/- was sanctioned by Chief Accounts Officer, District Fund Office, Srinagar; that the payment of the same has been shown drawn from Treasury, vide Authority No,. 166K-65 dated 10.3.1998 at S. No. 6807 but the same was not paid to the petitioner or any of the legal heirs of the deceased.
Page |2
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 it revealed that an amount of Rs. 38920/- on account of arrears of GP Fund of the deceased husband of the petitioner has been duly sanctioned and has been drawn from the Treasury vide Bill No. 7 of 4/98 and as per the records the bill was endorsed to the cashier HC Hidayat Ali, No. 562/S by the then Additional Superintendent of Police Srinagar who was at that time functioning as DDO also and vide his letter dated 31.5.1999 directed the SHO Shaheed Gunj to lodge an FIR against the accused Hidayat Ali, cashier for mis-appropriation of GP Fund amount of Rs. 38920/- of the deceased husband of the petitioner and accordingly an FIR was lodged against the said person and after thorough enquiry a challan has been also produced in the competent court of law. Thereafter the petitioner approached the respondents for release of GP Fund arrears but till date the amount has not been paid to petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said cashier Hidayat Ali has mis-appropriated an amount of Rs. 34412/- on account of GP Fund arrears of Late HC Shambu Nath Dhar also, therefore, the same FIR against the said accused was lodged in P/S Shaheed Gunj. The widow of Late Shambu Nath Dhar filed OWP No. 722 of 1999 before the Jammu Wing of this Hon'ble High Court which was finally disposed of on 10.9.2001 directing the respondents to pay the said amount to the widow with 9% interest per annum and in case of default of payment within 3 months the interest rate will be increased upto 15%. Since the petitioner's case is also Page |3 covered by the said judgment, therefore, the petitioner seeks disposal of the present petition on the same analogy.
4. Respondents have filed reply wherein they have admitted the claim of the petitioner, stating that in this regard a case vide FIR No. 55/1999 U/Ss 409,468,420, 470 RPC at P/S Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar was registered against the then cashier namely Hidayat Ali No. 52/S. The investigation was culminated and challan against the said person was produced before the competent court and the matter has been taken up with PHQ which in turn has taken up the matter with Finance/Home Department J&K Government and some clarifications have been sought by the concerned Department. The said observations were replied. The sanction for redrawal of the said amount is in progress and sincere efforts are being made for redrawal of the same expeditiously and same will be disbursed to the petitioner.
5. Heard and considered.
6. The facts and circumstances of the case are not only identical to OWP No. 772/99 titled Shantaji Dhar Vs. State of J&K & Ors. which was finally disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of Jammu Wing of this Court, vide judgment dated 10.9.2001 but arises out of the same transaction, therefore, the present petition is squarely covered by the said judgment.
7. Both learned counsel for the respondents though agreed to the proposition that the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount however, they vehemently oppose the grant of Page |4 interest stating that the payment has not been withheld to the petitioner due to any of the fault of the respondents and since the dealing Accountant, after drawl of the amount had not paid the amount and misappropriated, therefore, respondents may not be saddled with the payment of interest.
8. The contention raised by the learned counsels for the respondents is not tenable, in view of the fact, that the money due to the petitioner has been withheld since the year 1998 and despite having information and a direction from this court in the Shantaji Dhar's case in the year 2001, the payment was not made. So much so that after filing of response in the year 2010 wherein it was admitted that the amount due to the petitioner (herein) has not been made till now, the petitioner has been deprived of the money due to her amounting to Rs. 38920/- as arrears of GP Fund in the name of her deceased husband subjecting a widow to grave hardship.
9. In the considered opinion of this court, it does not lie in the mouth of respondents to say that the petitioner is not entitled to the interest as has been granted in the case of Shantaji Dhar's case which has arisen out of same transaction and direction has been complied with by the respondents. The contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents in this behalf being unjust is turned down.
10. In view of the aforementioned discussion, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondents to release an Page |5 amount of Rs. 38920/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the petitioner on the same analogy on which the arrears of GP Fund were released in favour of Shantaji Dhar wife of Late Shri Shambu Nath Dhar, within a period of three months, from the date copy of this order is served upon them. In case payment is not made within the above said period then the rate of interest would be 15% per annum and the enhanced interest component would be payable by the person on whose account the delay occurs.
11. Disposed of.
( M.A.CHOWDHARY ) JUDGE SRINAGAR 07.02.2022 "Mujtaba "
Page |6