IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11996 of 2004 ***** Smt.Lalita Devi wife of late Janardan Paswan, Resident of village-Amhara, P.S. Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai, at present C/o Ajay Kumar Paswan, resident of Village-Bochali, P.O. Kalarampur, District-Munger. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Department of Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Welfare Officer, Madhubani, District-Madhubani. 6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani, District-Madhubani. 7. The Headmaster, Government S.C. Residential Girls High School, Bathnaha, District- Madhubani. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. M. Chatterjett, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.P.7 For the Accountant General : Mr. L.P.K.Rajgrihar, Addl. Standing Counsel --------- 5. 23.1.2009. After many rounds of filing of affidavits both on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent State the issue boils down to an order dated 21st February, 2005, which is Annexure-9 to the writ application and has been brought with I.A. No. 1575 of 2005. By this order the District Welfare Officer, Madhubani has directed recovery of a sum of Rs.1,50,378.70 from the retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner on the ground that these were temporary advances drawn by the husband and not accounted for during his life time. Annexure-9 is under challenge in I.A. No.1575 of 2005. I.A. is allowed. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner died on 1.8.2001. After the - 2 - death of the husband this order has been passed on 21.2.2005. These advances which had been taken by the husband was an advance to run the residential school of which he was made a Mess Incharge. The respondents have themselves accepted that during the lifetime of the employee more than 7.5 lacs had already been got adjusted by him, how the balance has remained outstanding is not known to her because if any proceeding or any steps were taken during the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner may be he was in a better position to explain or reconcile the accounts. In the above facts learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision rendered in the case of Smt. Indu Devi v. State of Bihar, 2004(1) PLJR 162, where the Court has categorically laid down that after the retirement or death of an employee steps effecting recoveries against so-called outstanding may not be permissible, moreso, when the respondents never informed the deceased employee about the state of affairs during his lifetime. The case of the present petitioner is similar in that regard. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State they have stated that these are the reflection of the record available with the concerned authorities and, therefore, the accounts have to be reconciled but they have no explanation as to how advances made way back in the year 1994 was never reconciled and the husband of the petitioner was transferred from one station to the other thereafter. With the said situation and keeping in mind the settled law on this issue, Annexure-9 dated 21.2.2005 is quashed. Writ application is allowed. - 3 - Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that there are certain payments which is supposed to accrue to her on the account of the leave which her husband was entitled to, which has been wrongly calculated and has been indicated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5, the Court is not in a position to resolve the dispute because these are matters of records which can be best settled at the level at which such service records and leave records are maintained. In this regard liberty is available to the petitioner to resolve such issues before the authorities concerned. Any other claim in this regard can also be raised accordingly by the petitioner. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)