Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Janaki Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Janaki Devi vs State of Jharkhand and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Feb 26, 2004
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/517440

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP (S) No. 548 of 2004
Subject
Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue
Service
Acts & sections
Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Janaki Devi

Advocate Aparesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Advocate I. Sen Choudhary, SC-III

Legal References

Acts
Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
[2004(3)JCR108(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......lohardaga shall appear in person and explain why the petitioner be not paid additional amount of compensation for the laches and negligence on the part of the respondents and for not paying the amount to the petitioner-widow. let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned state counsel.'3. pursuant to the aforesaid order an affidavit has been filed by the district education officer, lohardaga stating inter alia that in compliance of the aforesaid order the following amounts have been paid to the petitioner.(i) family pension-rs. 61,499.50 poise vide cheque dated 10.2.2004.(ii) gratuity-rs. 8,040.00 paise vide bank draft dated 10.2.2004.(iii) provident fund-rs. 1,936.00 paise-withdrawn from post office on 21.2.2004.(iv) amount of cost-rs. 50,000.00 paise vide bd dated 21.2.2004.4. so far amount of interest is concerned it is stated that bill has been passed and the same shall be paid. it is further stated that group insurance is not payable. it is also stated that pension and gratuity has already been finalized.5. from the affidavit it is clear that the responsible officer of the state were sitting tight over the matter and they did not take any step for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner-widow whose husband died in 1978. because of their in action and negligence the government has to bear not only interest but also the cost of rs. 50,000.00. in my opinion this amount must be recovered from the erring officers for whose negligence the retiral benefits could not be paid in time to the petitioner.6. this court, therefore, directs the education secretary to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility against those officers for whose negligence the pensionary benefits could not be paid to the petitioner. i further direct the education secretary to recover the amount from the salary of those erring officers.7. so far the other retiral benefits including interest and arrears of pension are concerned, it is directed that the same shall be released in.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Reference may be made to the order dated 12.2.2004 which reads as under :--

'Heard the parties.

The petitioner is the widow whose husband, after serving as Headmaster of the school, died in 1978 but the retiral benefits have not been paid till date.

It is alleged by the petitioner that she being illiterate lady was always kept in dark by the Principal of the school and hence she was not paid even a single farthing. It is only after filing of this writ application when this Court called upon the respondents to file counter affidavit, two bank drafts; one for a sum of Rs. 61,499.50 paise being the arrears of provisional pension and another for a sum of Rs. 8040 being the provisional gratuity, have been produced before this Court by the State counsel. Even today the provident fund amount, gratuity amount and leave encashment etc. have not been paid to the petitioner.

In the counter affidavit it is stated that the GPF was sanctioned in 1985 but could not be paid.

The respondents are, therefore, directed to release the entire provident fund amount, gratuity amount and the leave encashment amount etc. together with 12% interest from the date of death of the deceased till the date of payment within a period of two weeks from today. The respondents shall also pay cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner within the aforesaid time.

Let this matter be listed on 26.2.2004 as the first case subject to part heard. If by that time the aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner, then the Secretary and Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand and the District Education Officer, Lohardaga shall appear in person and explain why the petitioner be not paid additional amount of compensation for the laches and negligence on the part of the respondents and for not paying the amount to the petitioner-widow. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned State counsel.'

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order an affidavit has been filed by the District Education Officer, Lohardaga stating inter alia that in compliance of the aforesaid order the following amounts have been paid to the petitioner.

(I) Family pension-Rs. 61,499.50 poise vide cheque dated 10.2.2004.

(II) Gratuity-Rs. 8,040.00 paise vide bank draft dated 10.2.2004.

(III) Provident Fund-Rs. 1,936.00 paise-withdrawn from post office on 21.2.2004.

(IV) Amount of Cost-Rs. 50,000.00 paise vide BD dated 21.2.2004.

4. So far amount of interest is concerned it is stated that bill has been passed and the same shall be paid. It is further stated that Group Insurance is not payable. It is also stated that pension and gratuity has already been finalized.

5. From the affidavit it is clear that the responsible officer of the State were sitting tight over the matter and they did not take any step for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner-widow whose husband died in 1978. Because of their in action and negligence the Government has to bear not only interest but also the cost of Rs. 50,000.00. In my opinion this amount must be recovered from the erring officers for whose negligence the retiral benefits could not be paid in time to the petitioner.

6. This Court, therefore, directs the Education Secretary to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility against those officers for whose negligence the pensionary benefits could not be paid to the petitioner. I further direct the Education Secretary to recover the amount from the salary of those erring officers.

7. So far the other retiral benefits including interest and arrears of pension are concerned, it is directed that the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from today. Although this writ application stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction but the Education Secretary is directed to submit the compliance report to the Registrar General of this Court within two months from today.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned SC-III for needful.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial