Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—Late Shri Pratap Singh, husband of petitioner Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar, died on 22.3.2004 while in service of Rajasthan Police as Constable. Shri Pratap Singh in his life time availed a loan of Rs. 1.5 lac for house construction as per Rajasthan Subsidised Loans (HDFC Scheme) Rules, 1993. While awarding such loan several conditions were imposed including that-

the proceedings shall be initiated to recover the entire amount advanced with penal interest in the event of violation of the conditions pertaining to payment of instalments;

in the event of termination of loanee from service the remaining amount of loan advanced shall be recovered from his gratuity/pension;

the responsibility to deduct hazard fund from salary of the employee shall be on drawing and disbursing authority and in the eventuality of non-withdrawal of hazard fund from pay of the Government servant relating to the month of March, then such fund is required to be deposited compulsorily through challan;

the employee shall be abide for getting such hazard fund deducted;

the employee and the drawing and disbursing authority shall be liable for making timely deductions of hazard fund.

After death of Shri Pratap Singh, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of family pension and other death-cum-retiral benefits and to have that she approached the Treasury Officer to issue a "No Dues Certificate". The Treasury Officer, Chittorgarh, vide letter dated 21.7.2004 instructed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,49,988/- including the interest in a tune of Rs. 3030/- against the house construction loan advanced. The petitioner immediately responded the same and made a request to the Treasury Officer to condone the requirement of depositing the house loan advanced with interest in view of the provisions of the Housing Advanced Rules notified under the Government of Rajasthan order No. F-1(5)FD(R)70 dated 31.3.1970. As per the order aforesaid the due amount of house loan is required to be adjusted against death-cum-retirement gratuity, gratuity, bonus, government provident fund, leave encashment account etc. in the event of death of government servant and further that no interest shall be charged subsequent to the date of death of the employee concerned.

No response to the request made by the petitioner was given by the Treasury Officer. However, the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, under a latter dated 13.7.2006 conveyed to the Treasury Officer that the hazard fund contribution in a tune of Rs. 57/- was recovered from the pay of Late Shri Pratap Singh under TV No. 24 dated 1.1.2003, but his name was not shown in the list of the employees from whom the hazard fund contribution was deducted for the year 2003-04. A request was made to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioner to finalise her pension/gratuity case. No such certificate was issued even then, hence, the petitioner preferred this petition for writ.

As per the petitioner, the dues relating to house loan advance are supposed to be adjusted as per Government of Rajasthan order dated 31.3.1970, thus, a "No Dues Certificate" should be given by the Treasury without getting the loan advance deposited.

In reply to the writ petition it is stated by the respondents that for the year 2003-04 the hazard fund was not deducted from the pay of Late Shri Pratap Singh, however, for the financial year 2004-05 a sum of Rs. 450/- was deducted and that was sent to the Treasury on 1.4.2004. Before clearance of the bill concerned, Shri Pratap Singh died, therefore, his case pertaining to deduction of hazard fund was not finalised. Shri Pratap Singh in his life time never communicated to the higher authorities about non-deduction of hazard fund for the year 2003-04, therefore, he is not entitled to have any No Dues Certificate.

A reply to the writ petition has also been filed on behalf of the Department of Treasury stating therein that the office of the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh did not deposit advance hazard fund for the financial year 2003-04 and after death of Shri Pratap Singh a sum of Rs. 450/- was deducted from his salary and was sent to the Treasury for the financial year 2004-05. As such, a violation of payment of regular hazard fund instalment condition is apparent, thus, the petitioner is required to deposit entire balance amount with interest.

Heard counsel for the parties.

As per the House Advance Rules and the Hazard Fund Scheme, the prime responsibility to deduct hazard fund instalments from pay of a government servant is upon drawing and disbursing authority. True it is, under the scheme a responsibility is also kept on the government servant to ensure regular deposition of hazard fund, but that is a secondary duty. The prime responsibility to deduct hazard fund rests upon the drawing and disbursing authority. If the drawing and disbursing authority failed to discharge the duty by not deducting hazard fund contribution from the pay of Late Shri Pratap Singh for the year 2003-04, then the petitioner is not supposed to be subjected to its adverse consequences, specially in the circumstances that the advance for a subsequent year was accepted by the treasury on 1.4.2004. The amount for the subsequent year as a matter of fact should have been adjusted by the Department of Treasury for earlier year i.e. of 2003-04. The Treasury without adjusting that amount against default year accepted the same for the subsequent year, for which no need was there to pay hazard fund instalment as the member of fund died on 22.3.2004.

Even if it is assumed that a default was there in depositing hazard fund for the year 2003-04, then for that the petitioner cannot be held liable. It was the prime duty of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh to deduct hazard fund and further to deposit that with treasury. The equity also requires that a widow of Government servant should not be subjected to further agony by non-issuance of No Dues Certificate due to fault of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh. Having considered peculiar facts of the case and with a view to meet the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by directing respondent Treasury Officer, Chittorgarh to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioner with a view to settle her pension/gratuity case. Respondent Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh is directed to complete the case of the petitioner for grant of pension/ gratuity and other post retiral benefits immediately after receiving No Dues Certificate and further to settle her case relating to house loan advance as per Government of Rajasthan order No. F-1(5)FD(R)70 dated 31.3.1970.