Smt. Geeta Devpura vs State & Ors on 18 March, 2009

                                    1

             S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1530/1999
       Smt. Geeta Devpura        Vs.   State of Rajasthan & Ors.

               Date of Order            ::        18.03.2009


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

      Mr Khet Singh, for the petitioner/s.
      Mr Y.P. Khileree, for the respondents.
                                 ...


      By this petition for writ a direction is sought by the petitioner for

respondents to sanction regular family pension from the date her

husband Sh. Lavkush Devpura died while holding the post of Block

Extension Educator at Primary Health Center, Jhadol (Sarada).




      Sh. Lavkush Devpura, husband of the petitioner, while working as

Block Extension Educator at Primary Health Center, Jhadol (Sarada)

Distt. Udaipur died on 25.1.1993, and therefore, the petitioner claimed

for family pension and all other terminal benefits including payment of

death-cum-retirement gratuity. The pension papers were forwarded to

the Department of Pension, however, for a petty long time no regular

pension payment order was issued except the grant of provisional

pension. By a letter dated 2.4.1994 the Deputy Chief Medical and Health

Officer (Family Welfare), Udaipur            sought   explanation   from the

petitioner regarding shortage of medicines and few other articles at

Store of the Health Center, where Sh. Lavkush Devpura was incharge.

The shortage aforesaid was of about a sum of Rs.60,000/-, thus, the
                                        2

petitioner was also held liable to deposit the amount concerned in the

event of failure to give satisfactory explanation. Being aggrieved by the

same and by non-payment of regular pension the petitioner preferred

this petition for writ.




       This Court by order dated 13.3.2002 directed the respondents to

ensure payment of family pension           and the payment of death-cum-

retirement    gratuity    for   the   amount   exceeding   the   amount   of

Rs.60,000/-. In pursuant to the order aforesaid the respondents passed

an order dated 12.4.2002 allowing family pension to the petitioner and

also making payment of gratuity after withdrawing a sum of Rs.60,000/-.




       Precisely now the question survives is regarding recovery of a sum

of Rs.60,000/- that is sought to be made from the petitioner in pursuant

to the communication dated 2.4.1994 (Annexu.8) against the medicines

and other articles said to be in shortage at the Store that was under

charge of Sh. Lavkush Devpura at the time of his death. As per the

respondents the petitioner being sole heir of late Sh. Lavkush Devpura is

required to satisfy whatever liability was there on her husband. It is

stated in reply to the writ petition that at Primary Health Center,

Jhadol medicines amounting to Rs.60,000/- were in short, and

therefore, that amount was required to be recovered from the

petitioner.
                                    3

      Heard counsel for the parties.




      Sh. Lavkush Devpura, husband of the petitioner, died on

25.1.1993. Till his death no physical verification was admittedly made

by the respondents and it was never pointed out to him in his life time

that the Store was having deficiency of the medicines and certain other

articles having cost of Rs.60,000/-. It is only under the communication

dated 2.4.1994 the petitioner came to know about the shortage

aforesaid. The respondents sought explanation from the petitioner

regarding the shortage of medicines and other goods at Primary Health

Center, Jhadol. True it is, her husband was having charge of the Store

but in no way the petitioner could have any knowledge regarding such

shortage. She was not at all concerned about official charge available to

her husband, and as such, she is not at all a person relevant to give any

explanation about the shortage found at the place where her husband

was working. The respondents could have made recovery of a

determined and settled liability only. No recovery merely on basis of an

allegation could have been made from the petitioner. As said above in

life time of Sh. Lavkush Devpura no liability was settled against him,

and therefore, no recovery merely on basis of an allegation could have

been made from the petitioner. As such, the recovery sought to be

made for the amount of Rs.60,000/- from the petitioner is bad, and

therefore, the same deserves to be declared illegal.
                                              4

               Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The recovery for the

         sum of Rs.60,000/- sought to be made from the petitioner's gratuity is

         declared illegal. The respondents are directed to refund the amount

         recovered, to the petitioner within a period of three months from today

         with an interest @ 8.5% per annum. No order as to costs.

                                                          (GOVIND MATHUR), J.

Jgoyal