CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12203 OF 2006 (In the matter of an application Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) ****** 1. The Union of India through the Secretary-cum-Director General Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna-1 3. The superintendent of R.M.S. ‘P’ Division Patna-4. 4. The Director Accounts (Postal) Exhibition Road, Patna-1. -----Petitioners Versus 1. Krishna Kumari Singh w/o Late Raghunath Saran Singh, Ex-Sorting Assistant, RMS (P) Division, Patna, resident of Village and P.O. Vishunpura, Police Station Bihta, Dist. Patna. 2. C.A.T. Patna Bench, Patna through its Registrar. -----Respondents ***** For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh,( CGC) For the Respondents : Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL **** S.K.Katriar & K.K.Mandal,J.J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18-11-2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A.No. 182 of 2005 (Krishna Kumari Singh vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by respondent no.1 herein has been allowed with detailed directions. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Raghunath Saran Singh, the late husband of respondent no.1 herein, was originally in the Army 2 service of the Government of India. He had joined on 30.01.1964, was declared invalid for defence service, and was discharged from service on 12.03.1970. He had served the defence services for a total period of 6 years and 39 days. Thereafter he joined the Postal Department of the Government of India on 10.01.1972, and superannuated with effect from 31.07.1996, while he was posted as Ex-Sorting Assistant R.M.S. (P) Division, Patna. He died on 09.08.2000. Respondent no.1 was thereafter confronted with two issues:- (i) Whether or not the employee was entitled to the benefit of Army service for payment of pensionary benefit from the Postal Department. (ii) The second issue was whether or not the authorities were entitled to recover the amount of penal rent, and the electricity charges, for unauthorized occupation of the Government accommodation under the Postal Department. 3. Respondent no.1 had earlier preferred O.A.No. 433 of 2001, which was disposed of by order dated 31.03.2003, with the direction to the authorities to consider the grievances of respondent no.1, and disposed of the same by a reasoned order. Accordingly the authorities considered the grievances of respondent no.1 herein and disposed of the same by a reasoned order of 24.02.2004 (Annexure- 7/A to the present counter affidavit), passed by the Chief Post Master General. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no.1 preferred the present O.A.No. 182 of 2005. The issue has been disposed of by the Tribunal with its 3 direction in paragraph no.9 of the order and is reproduced hereinbelow:- “9. In so far as this point is concerned, the respondents, if they so like, may verify from the Military Unit concerned, within a period of three months of the receipt of a copy of this order as to whether the husband of the applicant was receiving till his death any retiral benefit for his rendering service in the Army. If he has not received such benefits, the period of service rendered in the Army, that is, 6 years and 39 days, will be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits to the applicant and a fresh Pension order, including relating to other pensionary benefits, will be issued within two months thereafter by the respondents and the arrears would be paid within one month thereafter.” 4. We agree with these diretions and uphold the same. In case the authorities on enquiry come to the conclusion that the late employee had received post- retirement benefits from the Army, then respondent no.1 shall not receive the post-retirement dues for that period from the Postal Department. It must also be stated with emphasis that in case the authorities fail to verify from the Army services within a reasonable period, then it will be presumed that late employee had not received any post-retirement benefits from the defence services, and the period rendered in the defence service shall be added to the employee’s service in the Postal Department and the post-retirement benefits will be computed accordingly. 5. The second issue is that the late employee had, after his superannuation, continued to be in unauthorized occupation of the Government accommodation for the period 4 01.04.97 to 10.09.1999. This period was obviously prior to his demise. By order dated 24.2.2004, (Annexure- 7/A to the present counter affidavit), which had disposed of the representation in view of the aforesaid order dated 31.3.2003, passed in O.A.No. 433 of 2001, that determination of the penal rent and electricity charges for unauthorized occupation, had already been made prior to the death of the employee. Therefore, there was no need to call up respondent no.1 to furnish the details to determine and quantify the amount of penal rent and electricity charges. The same has already been done when the employee was alive. Therefore, the following two cases on which reliance has been placed by the learned Tribunal are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case:- (i) 2004(1) PLJR 162 (Smt. Indu Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) (ii) 2005(1) PLJR 21 ( Mostt. Snehlata Prasad vs. The Chairman, BSEB & Ors.) 5.1 It would bear repetition to state, which distinguishes the present case from the aforesaid reported judgments, that if such determination has been made in the life time of the employee, then the same can be realized from the money benefits/post- retirement benefits admissible to the widow, and it is not open to respondent no.1 to challenge its correctness. The aforesaid line of cases are to the effect that in cases where the determination had not been made so long the employee was alive, it would be unjust and unreasonable to expect the widow to answer to the queries of 5 which she may not aware at all. She may not be in possession of the relevant materials. Therefore, we disagree with this part of the order of the learned Tribunal. The present petitioners shall be entitled to recover the entire amount towards penal rent for unauthorized occupation of the accommodation and electricity charges from the money benefits/post-retirement benefits admissible to respondent no.1, in the capacity of the widow of the late employee, if not already recovered. She will not be liable to pay interest. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part, in the manner indicated hereinabove. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Patna High Court, Dated the 30th April,2010 Sym/NAFR (S.K.Katriar,J) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)