IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3950 of 2008 MRS.QUMRUN NISA @ QUMRUN NESA, wife of Late Md. Rahimullah, resident of Mehdi Hasan Chowk, Azad Lane, Brahampura, P.S. Brahampura, District Muzaffarpur. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Provident Fund Officer, Katihar. 3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food Corporation, Sone Bhawan, Patna. 4. The District Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation Office, Katihar. 5. The Accounts Officer, Bihar State Food Corporation, Katihar. 6. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Bhagalpur, Bihar. 7. Divisional Manager, Pension and Group Scheme Deptt., L.I.C., Jeevan Prakash, II Floor, Patna, Bihar. ---Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Nand Bansh Narain Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr Yogendra Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C. 6 For the Respondent- Corporation : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Messrs S.K. Sinha & Prashant Sinha, Advocates For Respondent No.7 (LIC) : Messrs Rajeev Ranjan Prasad & Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocates ------- 15. 11.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation as also learned counsel appearing for respondents no 6 and 7 as also the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon the death of her husband long back on 21st of December, 2005 while working as an Assistant Godown Manager at Katihar Office of the respondent-Corporation, the death- cum-retiral dues have not been settled as yet. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 submits that the requisite prescribed form as per Form 10-D and 20 with respect to settling the claim for pension and provident fund have not been received from the respondent-Corporation and, as such, till date the payment of pension and provident fund dues could not be settled. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in order to expedite the claim for payment of pension and provident fund has handed over the aforesaid two forms duly filled in issued by the Corporation to respondent no.6 in Court for its onward processing and passing the necessary orders at the earliest. As regards the recovery of certain amounts on account of advance taken as also loss/defalcation on the part of the husband of the petitioner from the gratuity and the leave encashment, it is submitted that in the absence of any enquiry in order to assess the exact amount, no recovery is permissible under the law from the retiral dues and as such the Corporation is duty bound to release the gratuity and the amount against the leave encashment as per the leave earned by the husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission with regard to recovery has relied upon a decision of this Court in the 3 case of Shyama Devi v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009(4) PLJR 761, on the point that after the death of the employee, the departmental proceeding, if at all initiated against the employee, abates. However, in the said judgment, with regard to the recovery, it has been observed that any recovery which is made with the consent of the employee concerned to which he did not choose to challenge and as such later on after his death, it is not open for the widow to challenge the same which her husband had chosen not to challenge. Another decision cited on behalf of the petitioner in the case of D.D. Kapoor v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1923 for the proposition that in the absence of any finding that the employee concerned had committed gross misconduct or negligence, nothing can be recovered from the retiral dues. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation, on the other hand, with reference to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit submits that the balance amount remained to be recovered from the husband of the petitioner is Rs.2,70,453.50 paise besides interest permissible under the rules. It is further submitted that during the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner various letters were communicated to him on 4 account of advance as also loss/defalcation. The husband of the petitioner did not challenge the recovery which was sought to be made from him rather the husband of the petitioner got a handsome amount adjusted from his salary while he was posted at different places. In other words, the said recovery was never challenged and the recovery was also made from his salary till he was alive and as such after the death, the widow is not permitted to challenge the aforesaid recovery. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7 submits that the appropriate amount on account of group insurance has already been sent to the respondent-Corporation and as such now respondent no.7 has nothing to pay. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings, this Court directs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Bhagalpur (respondent no.6) to expedite the payment of pension and provident fund dues expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. As regards the recovery, this Court finds that the calculations as indicated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the 5 counter affidavit as also the accounts indicated in Annexure A series of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, cannot be gone into by the Writ Court so as to give any finding either way. In the above circumstances, it will be open for the petitioner to object the aforesaid recovery by filing a representation before the Managing Director of the Corporation (respondent no.3). In case such a representation is filed within a period of six weeks, respondent no.3 on receipt of such representation shall communicate the petitioner with the details of the outstanding dues against the husband of the petitioner as also the relevant details in respect of such outstanding dues. The petitioner shall also be communicated with the relevant details with regard to the recovery made from the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled, on receipt of such information and other relevant information, if any, communicated to her, to file additional reply. The respondent no.3 thereafter shall consider the objection of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months thereafter and dispose of the objection of the petitioner by a reasoned order. Upon consideration, if the objection of the petitioner is accepted, the admissible dues, if any, may also be paid within next six weeks 6 thereafter with interest permissible under the rules. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)