AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N. Chowdhury, J.—Heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5.
The legitimacy of the order Hearing No. F 4(1) IS/ADC/TLM/98-90/3 896(5) dated 31.12.97 is the subject matter of this proceeding (Annexure-4).
The aforesaid order reads as follows:
As per decision of the higher authority, TTAADC, Khumlwng as communicated vide No. F. 1 (1)/ADC/DY.CEO/Misc/96/27680-82 dated 23.12.97, 50% salary of Sri Girindra Debbarma, KBT, Falguna Chow, Para J.B. School will be paid to Smit. Runu Bala Debbarma from December ''97 & onwards.
Salary payment of Sri Debbarma for the month of Dec.''97 only will be made from the cash counter of this office. Smt. Debbarma is also requested to receive her portion from the cash counter on 1st working day from January ''98 and onwards.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the impugned order is arbitrary, capricious and illegal. The Respondents appeared before this Court. The Respondent No. 5, the wife filed her counter affidavit.
The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned order on merit. According to them, a representation was submitted by Smt. Runu Bala Debbarma, Respondent No. 5, wife of the Petitioner alleging second marriage of the Petitioner and non-maintenance of his first wife. The TTAADC which is a statutory authority took cognizance of the matter held aft enquiry and found that the Petitioner was negligent in looking after his first wife after his second marriage. Accordingly, they directed the Inspector of School to arrange for deduction of 50% salary of the Petitioner payable to the Respondent No. 5 wife of the Petitioner from December, 97 & onwards.
Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the above action of the TTAADC is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that they took the law into their own hands. Upon hearing only Respondent No. 5, they directed to deduct the salary of the Petitioner even without taking the Petitioner inter confidence.
Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Bhattacharjee learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 respectively submitted that this impugned order was passed taking into consideration all the aspects including the sustenance of the minor child born in their wedlock.
On going through the papers on and on considering the arguments advanced by the parties, the said order, however, cannot be said to be strictly legal. Such matters are normally adjudicated by the forum created by the statute. At any rate, the direction to recover 50% of the salary from a Government employee in this process seems to be excessive.
In that view of the matter, this matter should be adjudicated in the proper forum. For this purpose, the Respondent No. 5 may approach the appropriate forum for the right remedy.
Till the matter is finally adjudicated, I am of the view that the Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) per month to the Respondent No. 5 Accordingly, the Inspector of School concerned shall make arrangement for realisation of Rs. 500/- per month from the salary of the Petitioner Sri Girindra Debbarma and shall pay the same to Smt. Runu Bala Debbarma, Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner shall deposit the balance amount @ Rs. 500/- per month from June 98 onwards which was fixed by this court. The arrear amount shall be paid by the Petitioner in three equal instalments in addition to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the Respondent No. 5. This Order will be operative till the matter is finally adjudicated in a court of law.
With the aforesaid modification of the impugned order, the writ petition is allowed.