IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 11466 of 2007 Jayanti Sharma wife of late Daya Nand Sharma, resident of Mohalla - Mahesh Nagar, P S - Patliputra, District - Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Sone Bhawan, Patna 3 The Chief Administrator, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Sone Bhawan, Patna 4 The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Bhojpur 5 The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Patna - Respondents ----------- 3 17.02.2009 The petitioner is the widow of late Daya Nand Sharma who was an employee of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and died in harness on 15.09.2004. The writ application has been filed for payment of amounts due to petitioner’s late husband including terminal benefits. A counter affidavit has been filed which is being returned as it has not been properly stamped to be filed by tomorrow in the Registry and would be kept on record as such. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that petitioner’s husband was found guilty of defalcation of about Rs 6,37,932/- which was ordered to be deducted from his salary at the rate of 50% of his salary till the amount was adjusted including recurring interest on the outstanding defalcated amount. It is stated that though the petitioner’s husband died on 15th September 2004, on 30.09.2005, the outstanding against the petitioner’s husband was reported at Rs 1,23,296/- with further interest of Rs 2,94,801.66 totalling to Rs 4,18,097.66. Then what is stated is that the salary due to be paid to the petitioner on account of 05th pay revision was Rs 1,70,151/- and total amount payable under leave encashment 2 was Rs 63,104/-, on account of gratuity, it was Rs 2,11,606/- all of which have stood adjusted against the dues aforesaid by letter dated 12.04.2006. First, in relation to the aforesaid stand, I may point out that the calculation, as sought to be given by the Corporation, is on the face of it, quite arbitrary. The adjustments and liabilities have to be balanced as on the date of the petitioner’s husband’s death that is as on 15th September 2004. The simple reason for that is if the Corporation intends to charge interest on delayed refund by petitioner then it must equally pay interest for the delayed payment of the terminal benefits. Thus, either the Corporation should credit the salary account, leave encashment account and gratuity account with interest at the same rate at which they are charging under the recoverable head from the date of petitioner’s husband’s death till the date of adjustment or they should strike a balance of what was due from the petitioner’s husband on the date of his death and adjust the same amounts as on that date. This exercise afresh the Corporation would have to do immediately. Prima facie if this calculation is done, it would be found that it is Corporation that has to still pay money after full adjustment to the petitioner. Now we come to the second major dispute. That is with regard to what is stated in paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit. It is stated that petitioner’s husband had taken advance of Rs 5,34,838/- but bills to the extent of Rs 4,07,305/- were submitted and payable and, as such, Corporation still claims accounts for Rs 1,27,533/-. In paragraph- 13 of the writ petition, it is stated and not denied that petitioner’s 3 husband had submitted bills worth Rs 9,17,001/- as far back as in 1997- 1999 and the corporation is admitting that only bills worth Rs 7,21,211/- has been submitted as would be apparent from Annexure-3 series being communication of the Corporation dated 05.09.2005. It is in 2005, that is after six years and more than a year after petitioner’s husband’s death, it is being disclosed that there are defects in the bill submitted and, as such, it could not be processed but once the writ petition has been filed, bills worth Rs 4,07,305/- have been accepted. This reflects extremely poor attitude of the Corporation. While the petitioner’s husband was alive and in a position to account for he was not asked to explain or account nor the bill submitted by him were verified though he had submitted bills exceeding the advances and, as such, was entitled to be paid by the Corporation. Once he died then first none of the bills were held to be verifiable but then when the writ petition was filed, bills worth Rs 4 lacs were found to be verified. What were the defects in the rest of the bills or shortcomings has neither been disclosed in the counter affidavit nor disclosed to the petitioner though at this stage even the petitioner is not in a position to explain because her husband is no more. In my view, having not confronted petitioner’s husband with the rest of the bills for necessary correction, the respondent-Corporation cannot be permitted to enforce payment in regard thereto. They let the matter hang without resolving the dispute and let the petitioner’s husband die. That part has to die with the petitioner’s husband and cannot be enforced. So far as group insurance is concerned, it is stated that the 4 claims of petitioner has been forwarded in the year 2006. Neither copies of letters nor details of those letters or the amount payable therein have been disclosed in the counter affidavit. In any view of the matter, I hold that as petitioner’s husband was the Corporation’s employee, it is the first and bounden duty of the Corporation to ensure that its employees get their due share from the LIC. The Managing Director of the Corporation would ensure that within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before him the LIC pays the group insurance claims payable to the petitioner. Similar is the case of provident fund where it is merely stated that the Regional Provident Commissioner has been forwarded the claim forms. Again, I direct the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation to ensure payment thereof to the petitioner within one month from the date aforesaid. So far as payment of central pay scale is concerned, the answer in the counter affidavit is evasive. The Managing Director is directed to examine the matter and pass a speaking order to be communicated to the petitioner in one month as aforesaid whether petitioner’s late husband was entitled to central pay scale or not. This disposes of the writ petition. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)