Deceased Bihar Home Guard’s Son To Receive Remaining Admissible Dues With Statutory Interest Within 2 Weeks: Patna HC

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of the remaining admissible retiral dues of his deceased father.

The court held

The Court directed the respondent authorities to take the necessary steps to pay the remaining admissible retiral dues to the petitioner or the deceased employee’s family within two weeks of receipt or production of the order.

It also directed

The application was disposed of with that direction.

01Facts

The petitioner’s father, Nityanand Mishra, was appointed as an Adhinayak Anudeshak in the Bihar Home Guard on 11 December 1982.

He was dismissed from service on 18 December 2017 for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage without prior permission, and was allegedly murdered on 30 November 2018.

His son sought payment of the deceased employee’s remaining provident-fund, life-insurance and gratuity dues, with interest. The State submitted that a substantial portion of the admissible retiral dues had already been paid to the petitioner.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of the remaining admissible retiral dues of his deceased father.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

ii.Whether the remaining dues were payable with interest, and within what period.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–7

03Law Applied

The Court relied on State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429, for the principle that pension and gratuity are valuable rights and property, not a bounty, and that culpable delay in their settlement and disbursement attracts interest; the judgment refers to interest liability commencing two months after retirement.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

It also cited D.D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894, as reiterating that principle.

p. 4 · ¶ 6

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision.

04Reasoning

The Court noted that a substantial amount of the admissible retiral dues had already been paid to the petitioner, whom it identified as the deceased employee’s biological son.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

In light of that payment and the cited principle that retiral benefits are enforceable rights rather than discretionary bounty, the Court considered that the remaining admissible dues should be paid without further delay and with statutory interest. It did not separately examine the calculation of the dues or the period from which interest was payable.

p. 3 · ¶ 5