IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.83 of 2008 URMILA TIWARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Gyanendra Kr.Shukla, Advovate For the State :--- None -------- 5 9.9.2008 Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 30.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 14949 of 2004 has preferred this appeal under clause under 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant, (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) is a widow of one Late Birendra Kumar Tiwary, who was an employee of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). He died on 24.4.2002. The writ petitioner filed application for payment of death cum retiral dues, medical reimbursement and traveling allowances. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order relegated the writ petitioner to approach - 2 - Justice Uday Sinha Committee for the payment of dues. Aggrieved by the same writ petitioner has preferred this appeal. This appeal is barred by limitation. According to the Stamp Reporter last date for filing of the appeal was 29.9.2007 whereas the appeal has been filed on 23.1.2008. An application (I.A. No. 480 of 2008) has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the application it has been stated that the appellant did not know about the order as she was under treatment from the period 5.9.2007 to 20.12.2007 and after recovery from the illness when she contacted her counsel on 27.12.2007 she came to know about the result of the case. She then made request for filing the appeal. We are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly this application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. We now proceed to consider the case of the appellant on merit. - 3 - Mr. G.K. Shukla appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that her claim was for payment of post retiral dues and as such it was not within the cognizance of Justice Uday Sinha Committee. He points out that Justice Uday Sinha Committee, constituted in pursuance of the Supreme Courts order is for disbursement of payment of salary and not the retiral benefits. In support of his assertion he has drawn our attention to the order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the said committee in relation to an employee of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation itself, in which the committee has held as follows: “We regret we cannot recommend payment of retiral dues as the sums deposited in pursuance of the Supreme Court order, are meant only for payment of due salary. Retiral benefits are not to be meted out of this fund. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the application. This application is disposed of accordingly”. Despite service of notice on the respondents, nobody has chosen to appear on their behalf and controvert the aforesaid assertion of the writ petitioner. In view of the aforesaid there is no escape from the conclusion that Justice Uday Sinha Committee is not competent to look into - 4 - the grievance of an employee of Corporation for payment of retiral dues. Accordingly we have no option than to set aside the order of the learned single judge and direct the respondent Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion in regard to the entitlement of the writ petitioner and that shall be decided by the corporation in accordance with law. In case on consideration of the claim any amount is found due to the petitioner same shall be paid to her within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the result the appeal is allowed, order of the learned single Judge is set aside with the direction aforesaid but without any order as to cost. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Rahman/