IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13879 of 2008 Shanti Kunwar, Wife of Late Ram Janam Singh, Village-Sigathi, P.S.-Bhabua, District-Kaimur at present C/o-Ramanand Singh, Advocate, Civil Court, Bhabua, resident of Ward No.8, Naya Chhawani Mohalla, Bhabua, P.O. & P.S.- Bhabua, District-Kaimur. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Union of India through the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 3. The Superintendent of Post Office, Rohtas Division, Sasaram. 4. The Postal Inspector, Bhabhua Postal Sub Division, Bhabua. 5. The Postmaster, Sasaram Head Post Office, Rohtas, Sasaram. 6. The Assistant Postmaster, Sasaram Head Post Office, Rohtas, Sasaram. 7. The Postmaster, Bhabua Post Office, Bhabua, Kaimur. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay. For the Union of India : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, C.G.C. ----------- 04 30.03.2010 How mercilessly authorities can make a helpless widow run around for giving her due lawful money consequent to death of her husband is illustrated by this case. How insensitive persons can become and for what “motive”. In 2006 the husband of the petitioner died. He had a saving account with the Bhabhua Post Office in which undisputedly she was the nominee. It is for receiving this payment, having been fed up with the authorities, she came to this Court and this writ application was filed in the year 2008. The insensitivity is also writ large from the fact that writ application having been pending for two years, when it was taken up in February, 2010, no counter affidavit was filed nor any payment made. Petitioner has categorically stated that each time she has approached the authorities for payment, but on some pretext or - 2 - the other or on some pretence or the other her claim was rejected and/or not entertained. She made specific allegation that Postal Authorities wanted illegal gratification for settling her lawful dues and having no amounts to pay or satisfy them all these excuses are made. I am inclined to accept what she says. No reason is given why for four years a helpless widow was made to run around. If one sees one of the communications of the Superintendent of Post Office, Rohtas Division, appended to the writ application, one would understand the situation. In 2008, he cancels the applications made by the petitioner holding it to be incomplete. One wonders, if the application was made to the Postmaster at Bhabhua, why did not he take pains to get it completed by a helpless widow. That shows insensitivity and that things were not normal. The Superintendent of Post Office, Rohtas Division while cancelling application asked her to make a fresh application and cooperate with the enquiry with the Postal Authorities, which were to be made from near relations. I wonder under what law, rule or regulation such an enquiry is necessitated when there is nomination in the account. The whole purpose of nomination would be defeated if such enquiries are permitted. The whole purpose of nomination was that once payment is made to the nominee, the person making payment is fully discharged of its legal obligation and liability in respect of the said debt, but surely some reason to delay and harass had to be searched out. A counter affidavit has been filed which only explains - 3 - why the counter affidavit could not be filed earlier in response to the two orders passed by this Court in February and March 2010. It is hopefully silent with regard to the reason for 4 years delay and what action the department proposes to take against officials responsible for this insensitive and insensible delay, which only goes to persuade this Court that it is a well orchestrated ring that operates. All that the Court is told that the widow has been sanctioned interest as if it was an act of grace being done. It is not an act of grace but a right of the widow to receive that amount with interest. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that all formalities have now been completed and petitioner can take the due amount from the Post Office concerned. The sanction letter, it is stated at Bar, was sent to the petitioner, but she was reported having gone out of the village, it could not be given to her. Learned counsel for the department states that all documents have been received back at Patna. In such a situation, learned counsel for the department would retrieve all necessary documents for the payment aforesaid and hand over the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner on grant of proper receipt in this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of one week from today. Respondents would see to it that on presentation of claim the same would now be paid to the petitioner on the same day. She will not be made to run around again. It is further directed that in addition to the amount so payable petitioner would be entitled to a compensation - 4 - of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the respondent for undue harassment caused to the petitioner for a period of 4 years. The department would be at liberty to recover the same amount from the person who was directly or indirectly responsible for the delay. Amount of Rs.10,000/- must be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from today, which the Chief Postmaster General would ensure. This Court leaves it to the Postmaster General to take a decision as to what action be taken against officers or officials who were responsible for this inordinate delay. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Postmaster General, Bihar, Patna for necessary action and compliance. The writ application is, thus, disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)