IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15793 of 2008 PREMA DEVI WIFE OF LATE KIRAN SHANKAR KARAN, RESIDENT OF LOK NAGAR, P.S. JEHANABAD, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VISHWESHARAIYA BHAWAN, P.S. SHASTRINAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 6 MANGLES ROAD, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT- PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, 6 MANGLES ROAD, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT- PATNA 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD PATNA DIVISON NO.3, PATNA -------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate For the Housing Board : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate & AAG-III For the State : Mr. Rabindra Priyadarshi, SC XIX 9 29.03.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the respondent-Board as also the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband who was working on the post of Storekeeper in the office of the respondent no.4 superannuated on 31st December, 2003 and later died on 09.10.2009, however till date the claim for payment of the gratuity, group insurance and the leave encashment have not been settled despite request. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the counter affidavit the stand of the Board is to the effect that the amount with regard to the payment of group insurance and the leave encashment have not been released for the reason that the husband of the petitioner who was working on the post of store keeper did not handover the charge of large number of materials as also - 2 - large number of cement bags which got wasted and allegedly he did not explain such discrepancy. Learned counsel further submits that on perusal of the letter no. 25 dated 16th January, 2009 as contained in Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 4, it would appear that the charge with respect to large number of items were handed over to the Board, and as such, the allegation that materials were not handed over by the husband of the petitioner is incorrect and as such the respondent-Board is obliged to release the payment on account of group insurance and leave encashment. As regards the payment of gratuity, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to receive the gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the resolution of the Board as per the Agenda 8 taken in its meeting no. 185 dated 19th April, 1999 vide Annexure-4 is not applicable to the husband of the petitioner since initially he was appointed in the Department of Housing, Govt. of Bihar as evident from the letter contained in memo no. 3255 dated 07.09.1972 (Annexure-3) and later on his services were sent to the respondent-Board and in the above circumstances the husband of the petitioner was also entitled to receive the gratuity. - 3 - Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General No. III appearing for the respondent-Board submits that on perusal of the letter no. 25 dated 16.01.2009 as contained in Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit, it would appear that after taking into consideration the articles which were handed over by the husband of the petitioner and making all such adjustments still a sum of rupees nine lakhs and odd was found recoverable from the husband of the petitioner which he failed to explain to the Board as required from him through the various letters written to her husband as mentioned in the aforesaid letter. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that on perusal of the letter dated 29.02.2008 written by the husband of the petitioner vide Annexure-15 it would appear that the petitioner had replied to all those letters and as such it is not correct to say that the husband of the petitioner did not replied to those letters issued by the officers of the Board as mentioned in Annexure-B. Notwithstanding the above, learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits that although it is explained in the counter affidavit that the claim of the petitioner is not admissible, however, since the employee concerned died during the pendency of this writ - 4 - application, and as such, in case the present petitioner has got any grievance or seeks any clarification it will be open for the petitioner to put up all her claims before the Secretary of the respondent-Board stating distinctly and clearly with regard to her claims along with the supporting documents. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent- Board in not releasing the amount of gratuity, group insurance and the leave encashment is not correct as the respondent-Board did not enquire into the matter thoroughly. However, since the petitioner is a widow and is in dire need of money, therefore she is prepared to put her claims afresh before the respondent no.3 by way of representation with a copy to the respondent no.2. In this view of the matter, it is directed that in case such representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today along with the certified copy of the present order as also copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the grievances of the petitioner raised in the representation shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioner could be settled at the earliest. It is further directed that - 5 - upon consideration of the representation if any amount is found admissible for payment the same may also be paid within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, upon consideration if any of the claims or part of the claim is found not admissible, the same shall be disposed of by a speaking order and be communicated to the petitioner by post under registered cover. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)