IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13804 of 2007 Rikebiya Devi, wife of Late Dhanush Dhari Prasad, resident of Village- Katkauli Mishra, P.O. Sidha Ahilashpur, P.S. Madhuban, DistrictMau ( U.P.) --------------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Vishwasheraiya Bhawan,Patna-1 3. Engineer-in-Chief, National High Way Division, Road Construction Department, Vishwasheraiya Bhawan,Patna-1 4. Chief Engineer, National High Way Division, Road Construction Department, Vishwasheraiya Bhawan,Patna-1 5. The Executive Engineer, National High Way 31, Road Construction Division, Khagaria 6. District Magistrate, Khagaria 7. Mr. Ramyati Singh, Executive Engineer ( Transferred ) , National High Way 31, Road Construction Division, Khagaria 8. Mr. Jagdish Sah, Cashier ( Father’s name not known), National High Way 31, Road Construction Division, Khagaria 9. The Accountant General,Bihar,Patna-1 ----------------------------------- Respondents. ----------- 02 25-07-2011 Heard Sri Vivekanand Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader no.19, who appears on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Sri Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.9/ Accountant General,Bihar,Patna. The petitioner has prayed for directing the Respondents to make payment of the amount of Rs.63,808/- under the head of unutilized leave salary , arrears of pension to the tune of Rs.5538/- and Rs.3692/- in respect of death-cum- retiral dues of her husband. The husband of the petitioner died on 16.12.2002, while serving as a Roller Driver in Public Works Department under the Executive Engineer, National High Way Division, Khagaria. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that other retiral dues were paid but under the aforesaid head by making fraud 2 respondent nos.7 and 8 i.e. Mr. Ramyati Singh, Executive Engineer, N.H.31, Road Construction Division, Khagaria and Mr. Jagdish Sah, Cashier, NH-31, Road Construction Division, Khagaria had fraudulently withdrawn the said amount. It has further been indicated that son of the petitioner had filed a complaint case in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria vide Complaint Case No.727C of 2005, which was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thereafter, an F.I.R. vide Khagaria P.S. Case No.31 of 2006 was registered on 20.1.2006. In sum and substance, it has been prayed that payment of the aforesaid amount, i.e. total amount of Rs.73, 038/- and odd was not made to the petitioner, but it was withdrawn by Respondent nos. 7 and 8 by committing fraud. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent nos.4 and 5 i.e. the Chief Engineer, N.H. Division, Road Construction Department, Patna and Executive Engineer, N.H.31, Road Construction Division, Khagaria . In paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, a categorical statement has been made regarding payment of all the retiral dues. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, which is as follows: “5. That it is humbly submitted that all the retiral benefit of the husband of the petitioner was paid to the petitioner in eleven instalments totaling Rs.6,30,846.00 ( Six lacs thirty thousand eight hundred fourty six ) only including leave salary of Rs.63,808.00( Sixty three thousand and eight hundred eight) only and pension amount of Rs.5,538 .00 and Rs.6,392.00 and details of the particulars, Bill number and date of payment is enclosed” Along with counter affidavit, the Respondents have also 3 brought on record the final report submitted by the police in Khagaria P.S. Case No.31 of 2006. Perusal of the final report indicates that Complaint case was filed as per instance of the Officers of a union of the Employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this case has also filed reply to the counter affidavit and along with reply, he has brought on record photo copy of acquaintance role. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to photo copy of those document, which is Annexure-4 to the reply to the counter affidavit, has tried to make out a case that the petitioner had not put his L.T.I., but the Respondent authority had created some documents. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that since the Respondents on oath had made categorical statement for clearing all the retiral dues itself, coupled with the fact that even in investigation, the allegation made by son of the complainant was not found true, it would be difficult for this Court to pass any favourable order in this case. Moreover, in such a disputed question of fact, the Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction may not interfere. In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J. )