High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 JH CK 0092

Jagtaran Devi vs Mineral Area Development Authority and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 16 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dabbiru Ganeshrao Patnaik, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 2250 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 432 words

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—It appears that in spite of repeated directions, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

2.

Learned Counsel for the respondents is present and submits that for assessing the petitioner''s claim for refund of the amount purportedly deducted from the salary of the petitioner''s husband, hectic search has been made to trace out the relevant documents, but the same has not been traced out as yet. Learned Counsel suggests that the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities and in the meantime the concerned file would be searched for and tried to be located.

3.

The above submissions appears to be far from convincing.

4.

From the perusal of the pleadings in the present writ application and the documents annexed thereto, there is ample material to inform that a sum of Rs. 51,511/ - was deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner''s husband and a further sum of Rs. 7,678.85 which is the arrears of the C.P.F. dues has also not been paid to her.

5.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner explains that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 51,511/ - has been illegally deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner''s husband though he was not liable by any rule whatsoever to pay such amount. Referring to a copy of the internal notings of the office of the Managing Director, MADA dated 15.09.1995 which bears the signature of the Secretary, MADA, learned Counsel informs that even in the aforesaid internal notings it has been acknowledged by the concerned authority of the respondents that the petitioner''s husband was not liable to pay any such amount and yet the deduction from the gratuity amount has been illegally made.

6.

No counter affidavit has been filed to rebut or controvert the above statements of the petitioner. Merely because the relevant documents are not available, the respondents cannot ignore the claim of the petitioner and postpone taking decision on the same for indefinite period.

7.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 51,511/ - to the petitioner and further to pay the balance of C.P.F. amount to the petitioner within one month from the date of this order. The amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, to be calculated from the date when the amount was payable and till the date of final payment. If this order is not complied with within the period stipulated, the total amount shall carry penal interest in addition to the interest above stipulated.

With the above observations, this application is disposed of.