Patna High Court - Orders
Smt.Malti Devi vs The Chairman,B.S.E.B. & Ors on 29 January, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16717 of 2004
SMT.MALTI DEVI w/o LATE CHANDRA KISHORE SINGH,R/O
VILLAGE- PATASANG, PO-AMBA,PS-RAHUI DISTT-NALANDA
----------------PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.E.B., BAILEY ROAD PATNA
2. THE SECRETARY, BSEB, VIDYUT BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD,PATNA
3. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BSEB, VIDYUT BHAWAN,BAILEY
ROAD,PATNA
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL AREA
ELECTRICITY BOARD DAROGA RAI PATH,PATNA
5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA
6. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY
DIVISION, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA-- RESPONDENTS
-----------
4 29.1.2009Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is widow of one Chandra Kishore Singh who was working as Accounts Assistant under the respondent, Bihar State Electricity Board. He died in harness on 26th July, 1996. The widow therefore claims the retiral dues from the respondents. Some payments came to be made, but almost three years of the death of the husband of the petitioner vide order dated 14.9.1999 contained annexure-1, a sum of Rs. 46,863.05 was sought to be recovered from D.C.R. Gratuity of her late husband. This compelled the petitioner to approach the High Court and challenge the order contained in annexure-1.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no recovery can be made from D.C.R. Gratuity of the employee, more so after death from the widow of the employee and this regard reliance is placed on the case of Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board vrs. Mostt. Snehlata Prasad reported in 2007(1) PLJR 586. He further submits that in obscene of any notice or show cause in the life time of the employee in question -2- wrong fixation cannot be made a ground for recovery, more so when the said fixation is not attributable to the employee in any manner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that retiral dues has been worked out and paid. The only issue is the recovery which has already been made from the D.C.R. Gratuity in terms of annexure-1.
Keeping in view of the decision noted above as well as the full Bench decision rendered in the case of Ram Binod Singh vrs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors along with other analogous cases reported in 2007(3) PLJR, 398, this writ application is allowed. Annexure-1 is quashed. The respondent Bihar State Electricity Board is hereby directed to refund the above amount so deducted from the D.C.R. Gratuity of the husband of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order The petitioner has also prayed for payment of revised gratuity to which learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board submits that the same is being paid in instalments to all the employees and even the petitioner will get her dues in the same manner and fashion as to the others.
This writ application is allowed with the above direction.
RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)