IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12074 of 2003 Most Rekha Devi, wife of late Ramji, resident of Mohalla –Ambedkar Colony, Arya Kumar Road, P.S. Kadamkuan,District-Patna.......................Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Executive Officer, Patna municipal Corporation,Patna 2. The Accounts Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation,Patna. ............Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Pramod Rajpati For the Corporation: Mr.Chandrasekhar ---- 10 1.10.2008 Petitioner is widow of a Safai Karamchari (Sweeper) of the Patna Municipal Corporation. It is not in dispute that the said employee died in harness on 14.10.2001. As usual, the widow was not paid anything thereafter. Neither any retiral benefit dues nor family pension was paid, forced the petitioner to come to this Court. A counter affidavit has now been filed in these proceedings in which it is stated that instead of any amount payable to the petitioner, amount is recoverable and in support thereof a purported order no. 482 has been annexed in which it is shown that the petitioner was a striking employee of 322 days in excess of entitled leave and therefore as order contained in Annexure A dated 22.3.2005 the salary purported to have been paid during those periods was shown to be recoverable. This recoverable amount comes to Rs . 42,665/- and if this is adjusted with the amount payable then there remains a balance recoverable of Rs. 10,525/- from the petitioner’s late husband. I am not satisfied with the legality of the said deduction - 2 - for more than one grounds. Firstly the deduction is being ordered on 22.3.2005 whereas the employee had died on 14.10.2001 A deduction from wages can only be made after a proceeding is initiated. None is shown issued at all. Secondly, the deduction is not by way of with- holding salary payment. These payments were made all along upto his death and are now being sought to be recovered after his death i.e. after almost four years. This cannot be permitted in law. Lastly, it would be seen that the deduction starts from the year 1983 upto 2001. This is the hight of impropriety and arbitrariness. The salary paid in 1983 is being sought to be recovered in 2005 without even there being a proceeding. This again cannot be countenance . I, therefore, direct that payments be made to the petitioner within one month of the balance due to her after deleting the claim on account of excess leave which would be around Rs. 32,140/-. The same has to be paid by account paying cheque and be delivered to the petitioner within the said time. A cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the petitioner was awarded by this Court on 5.5.2005. It is regrettred that only because no time was fixed by this Court, a cheque for Rs. 5,000/- in the name of petitioner dated 5.9.2008 is now being handed over. Considering the two aforesaid conducts of the respondent-Corporation, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and with a direction to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within one month in addition to the aforesaid amount. (Navaniti Prasad Singh)