IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15903 of 2009 PRAMILA DEVI W/O LATE PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, RESIDENT OF VILL- BELTHU, P.O-HARPUR, P.S- SAKUND, DISTT- BHAGALPUR, AT PRESENT IN MOHALLA NANDANINAGAR NANDAN PAHAR ROAD (NEAR DIVINE PUBLIC SCHOOL), P.S-DEOGHAR, DISTT- DEOGHAR ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, PATNA, BIHAR, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, R. BLOCK, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA, BIHAR. 4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, BANKA, BIHAR. 5. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, BANKA, BIHAR. 6. THE TREASURY OFFICER, BANKA, BIHAR. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,KATORIYA BLOCK, DISTT- BANKA. ---Respondents ----------- 8. 6.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State as also the learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the statements made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit with regard to the payment of the retiral dues as indicated in the said paragraph, the petitioner has nothing to say. However, the same is subject to verification. It is further submitted that admittedly, the family pension is being provisionally paid. However, the petitioner is aggrieved with regard to the claim of recovery on account of alleged advances given to the husband of the petitioner as mentioned in serial nos. 3 and 4 of letter no.713 dated 21.8.2009, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application. It is submitted that the decision to recover the aforesaid amount on the alleged advances is unilateral. 2 Nothing has been brought on the record that the aforesaid amount has been arrived at by making some sort of enquiry either in the presence of the husband of the petitioner or in the presence of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, before issuance of the aforesaid letter, contained in Annexure 1, the petitioner in no point of time was apprised of the alleged advances and the proposed recovery and as such, the aforesaid recovery is not justified from the death-cum-retiral dues of the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the alleged advances were given to the husband of the petitioner under MADA Scheme and also under the Rojgar Guarantee Scheme as mentioned in serial no.4 of the aforesaid letter, which was found recoverable on the report of the audit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the alleged recovery as mentioned in Clauses 3 and 4 of the aforesaid letter contained in Annexure 1, the petitioner proposes to represent her grievances before the District Magistrate, Banka (respondent no.3) bringing to the notice that in the absence of any enquiry either against the husband of the petitioner or against the petitioner, nothing can be recovered without providing any opportunity under the law. If such a representation is filed within a period of six weeks enclosing the copy of the relevant documents in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order, the grievances of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law and her representation shall be disposed of by a 3 reasoned order, including the decision with regard to the final fixation of family pension, within a period of four months. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)