CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12122 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. --------- Most. Asha Devi, wife of late Chandra Kumar Singh, Resident of Village – Sonebhadra, Police Station-Karpi, District – Jehanabad -------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 3. The Block Development Officer, Jehanabad. -------------------- Respondents For the petitioner: M/S. Naresh Dikshit and Kunal Tiwary. For the respondents: Mr. Harishankar Roy, JC to AAG- 2. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ******** A K Tripathi, J. Petitioner is the widow of late Chandra Kumar Singh who was a Panchayat Sewak in Jehanabad. He died on 25.7.1997 but before his death certain demands were made upon the husband of the petitioner in relation to some of the work which was assigned to him as money had been advanced by the district authorities for completion of the work in question. Certain figures were worked out showing outstanding dues. Late Chandra Kumar Singh wrote to the Block Development Officer clarifying the position. But when no decision as such was taken he approached the High Court challenging the letter of the Block Development Officer which had ordered recovery of a sum of Rs. 91,238/-. The Court entertained the writ application to a limited extent and a direction was issued to the District Magistrate to - 2 - verify the facts and also consider the explanation offered by the late employee and order dated 1.12.1997 thereafter came to be passed by the District Magistrate. This order in question was passed after the death of the employee. The present petitioner approached the High Court a second time over making a grievance on the decision dated 1.12.1997 contained in annexure-8. The Court found merit in the contention of the petitioner on the ground that neither the explanation offered by the husband of the petitioner was taken into consideration nor any reasoning assigned and therefore, the order was quashed and yet another opportunity was given to the State authorities to pass an appropriate speaking order. 2. The speaking order is dated 25.11.1999 and has been brought on the record as annexure-11 and this is under challenge in the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is literally fighting with her hands tie against the State authorities because she is not in a position to offer explanation for an official work having been done by her late husband. Though from the communications made during the life time of her husband she could gather that he had explanation to offer with regard to the work done or the work not done or completed to the extent which was assigned. Certain demands had also been made for revising the estimate of the work because of enhancement of cost of raw-material which was not entertained at the appropriate time. Subsequently the work got completed by assigning it to yet another contractor but without doing - 3 - the necessary measurement in front of the husband of the petitioner. These facts are available on the records of the writ application. 4. The other submission is that no doubt a detailed kind of order seems to have been passed by the District Magistrate and a liability of Rs.53,072.13 has been fixed by verifying the so-called documents available with the respondents and an enquiry report furnished by the Executive Engineer assigned for the job by the District Magistrate. But then there is nothing to show from the speaking order that any opportunity was given to the petitioner by furnishing those materials including enquiry report to allow her to even make an effort to either rebut or accept it. In other words, the order in question is a unilateral order and in that view of the matter the present order will also have to go in the same way as the other orders went when two writ applications were allowed in favour of the petitioner. 5. The Court is anxious about the public money and its utilization but fixing liability on a widow that too with regard to certain official work and without giving an opportunity, may compel the Court to consider whether a fair procedure had been adopted which has consequences for the widow and the family. The unilateral order therefore passed by the District Magistrate contained in annexure-11 will not be sustained and the same is quashed. Since the operation of the impugned order contained in annexure-11 had been stayed at the time of the admitting the writ application, it is hereby directed that the respondents would now be duty-bound not - 4 - to enforce the order against the petitioner. 6. If the retiral dues and other outstanding have not been settled by the respondents due to pendency of the present writ application, the respondents will now endeavour to see that the petitioner is paid her rightful dues preferably within a period of three months from the date of production / communication of the order. 7. The writ application stands allowed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court: The 19th November, 2008. R K Pathak.