High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Geeta Devi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 8 December, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Geeta Devi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 8 December, 2010
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CWJC No 9540 of 2006
               Geeta Devi, wife of late Rabindra Prasad Singh, resident of
               Village - Ghoreghat, Police Station - Bariyarpur, District -
               Munger                                               -       Petitioner
                                       Versus
         1    The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Patna
         2    The Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar, Patna
         3    The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna
         4    The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
         5    The Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand,
              Ranchi
         6    The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
         7    The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Garhwa Circle, Government
              of Jharkhand, Garhwa
         8    The Accountant General, Bihar and Jharkhand, Patna -          Respondents
                                      -----------

3 08.12.2010 Counter affidavit has been filed. State of Jharkhand is

represented. With consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for

disposal at this stage itself.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in respect

of dues of her late husband payable by the State. At the very outset, it

may be pointed that petitioner’s husband superannuated from the State

Services in the Cooperative Department on 01.01.1998. Thus, the entire

liability of dues, in respect of service period or pension, would be on the

State of Bihar as the State of Jharkhand was created with effect from

15.11.2000. State of Jharkhand, thus, is not a necessary party.

The petitioner was employed in the Cooperative Department

of the State of Bihar on 02.08.1967. With effect from 20.01.1988, he was

put under suspension which suspension was ultimately revoked on

26.11.1994 upon punishment order being passed. The petitioner was

awarded punishment in the shape of withholding two annual increments

with cumulative effect with further order that during period of suspension,
2
he would be paid only subsistence allowance and nothing further. On

01.01.1998, petitioner superannuated and soon thereafter, on 22.05.1998,

he died. Petitioner’s grievances, in respect of her late husband, are three

folds. Firstly, payment of arrears of salary for the period April, 1987 to

January 1988, payment of subsistence allowance for the major period of

suspension, payment of retiral dues upon his superannuation and pension

for the period her late husband was alive.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in which it is

not disputed that during major period of suspension, petitioner’s late

husband did not receive the subsistence allowance because he was not

available to receive payment. It is also not in dispute that for few months

prior to his suspension, petitioner’s husband was not paid his salary which

is a matter to be enquired into. With regard to pension, it is stated that

instructions have been issued to the Munger Treasury from which

payments are to be made. Petitioner maintains that she has not received

the payments as aforesaid.

This matter has already been pending in this Court for

considerable period and no useful purpose would be served by keeping it

pending for any further time. I, therefore, direct the Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Bihar to immediately look into the matter and take

steps that the grievances of the petitioner on all these counts are redressed

and after due enquiry, ensure that all amounts, that have remained unpaid,

be paid to the petitioner within three months on production of a copy of

this order alongwith detailed representation before him by the petitioner.

If in case certain amounts have been paid, petitioner would be intimated
3
the same while making payment. Details would have to be supplied to the

petitioner as well. The responsibility for timely compliance of the order

of this Court would solely rest on the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as

aforesaid.

With these observations and directions, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

M.E.H./                                         (Navaniti Prasad Singh)