Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sail Devi Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 July, 2011
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
Bench: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
1 07.07.2011
W.P. 17065 (W) of 2005 ss Sail Devi Yadav Vs. Union of India & ors.
Mr. Asit Kr. Banerji Mr. S. N. Chattopadhyay ... For the petitioner Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya ... For the Railway Authority The husband of the writ petitioner is missing since 23rd March, 1993. The wife of the missing employee made a representation before the authorities for releasing Provident Fund dues on ad hoc basis. She filed a writ petition in 1997 which is numbered as W.P. 447(W) of 1997. However, the said writ petition was dismissed for default. No final adjudication and/or decision was made there. This is the second writ petition which was filed by the wife of the missing employee for different relief mainly for releasing family pension and settlement of all other dues.
Matter appears today for final hearing after exchange of affidavits. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the Railway authorities submitted 2 that, as pre-condition of releasing the family pension etc., the petitioner is required to lodge a report of the concerned Police Station to the effect that the employee has not been traced after all efforts made by the police and an Indemnity Bond to be furnished by the dependent of the employee that all payments against the payment due to the employee would be adjusted in case he appears on the scene and makes any claim.
The learned Counsel for the Railway authorities submits that neither the report of the concerned police station nor the Indemnity Bond was furnished.
The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the Indemnity Bond would be furnished at any point of time so far the furnishing or the report from the police station it is not in their control.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. It appears to this Court that really lodging of the report is not within the control of the missing employee's family. It is the police authorities who can do this. It appears from the record that the wife of the missing employee has lodged a diary on 6th July, 1995 with Bally Police Station, District Howrah. But no such report was given after proper investigation. It was submitted that 3 even in spite of several requests made by the wife of the missing employee, the report was not furnished.
In view of such circumstances, I direct the Officer- in-Charge, Bally Police Station to submit a report against the F.I.R. lodged on 6th July, 1995 stating therein if there was any investigation and after making such investigation the missing employee was traced or not and if the missing employee is untraced, such report should be submitted before this Court within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The police authorities are to inform that whether the missing employee is not traceable after all efforts made by them.
The matter is directed to be listed after six weeks from date.
Let a photostat plain copy of this order duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate on record of the petitioner on usual undertaking and the Officer in Charge, Bally Police Station is directed to act on the basis of the same and to submit a report within the time stipulated. If any assistance is required from the writ petitioner, the police authorities will give notice to the wife of the missing employee.
4(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.)