Gyanu Sharma vs Chief Manager Central Bank Of India ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8937 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gyanu Sharma vs Chief Manager Central Bank Of India ... on 11 April, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20511
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3368 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Gyanu Sharma
 
Respondent :- Chief Manager Central Bank Of India Mumbai And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dwijendra Prasad Gupta,Anoop Kumar Bajpai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Gopal Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Sri D.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank assisted by Sri Akash Deep Srivastava, Advocate.

2. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party No.4 is hereby dispensed with.

3. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the opposite party No. 3 as contained in Annexure-1 to the this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties concerned to appoint the petitioner on any suitable post under compassionate grounds in the interest of justice.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties concerned to pay the remaining dues of father of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

4. Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, has produced a copy of letter dated 09.04.2025 issued by Chief Manager - HCM of Central Bank of India, Lucknow providing written instructions in the matter, same is taken on record.

5. Sri Srivastava, has raised objection for maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is a son of deceased employee from the second wife of him. He has shown the photocopy of earlier writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.5994 (S/S/) of 2004 filed by the petitioner and his sister. In the aforesaid petition, both the petitioners have prayed that issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of gratuity and provident fund etc. to the petitioners according to their 1/2 share and also make payment of family pension since 1999 and regularly in future alongwith interest at the current market rate till the date of actual payment. The aforesaid writ petition was decided finally vide judgment and order dated 03.02.2023, which has been annexed with this petition, the same reads as under:

"Heard.

The petitioners herein are claiming post retiral dues consequent to death of their father. The facts of the case in brief are that late Kashi Prasad Sharma was an employee of Central Bank of India. He had married one Maya Sharma. During subsistence of the said marriage and without the same being annulled or divorce having taken place between them, he is said to have married once again another lady namely, Smt. Kiran Sharma. Petitioners herein claim to be daughter and son of late Kashi Prasad Sharma from his second wife namely, Smt. Kiran Sharma. Learned counsel very fairly submitted that so far as mother of the petitioner is concerned, she would not have any right for obvious reasons but they will have a right to succeed to the estate of late father even if they are treated to be illegitimate daughter and son. He does not deny the right of children from the first marriage also to such estate of deceased-Kashi Prasad Sharma. Some of the part retiral dues have been paid by the Bank to opposite party nos.4/1 to 4/6 but some remain to be paid.

Notices were issued to son and daughters from the first marriage who have been arrayed as opposite party nos.4/1 to 4/6 as opposite party no.4- their mother, namely, Maya Sharma died during pendency of the petition but the said substituted opposite parties have not responded.

The Court asked learned counsel for the petitioners to show any proof of acceptance of their relationship with late Kashi Prasad Sharma by opposite party nos.4/1 to 4/6 as unless it is undisputed and admitted to them that petitioners are daughter and son of late Kashi Prasad Sharma, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not enter into a roving inquiry to consider as to whether they are actually the daughter and son, even if illegitimate, of late Kashi Prasad Sharma. In response, learned counsel submitted that Annexure C-3 (page no.11) to the counter affidavit of the opposite party-Bank is Succession Certificate issued by the District Magistrate wherein name of petitioners and also that of opposite party nos.4/1 to 4/6 is mentioned. However, the Court finds that this Succession Certificate issued from the office of District Magistrate has limited utility. The monetary limit on the purpose it is used is also prescribed. Succession Certificate is issued under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956. The Bank itself can also get an inquiry conducted to find out as to whether petitioners are daughter and son of late Kashi Prasad Sharma from Smt. Kiran Sharma. During subsistence of first marriage, the second marriage obviously is void, the parties being Hindu yet, if it is found that petitioners are legitimate daughter and son of late Kashi Prasad Sharma then they would have the right to succeed to the estate of their deceased father.

Learned counsel also invited attention of the Court to a decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 735 'Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors.' wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court considering a similar issue observed that even when no civil court has pronounced the relationship of the deceased with the alleged wife in accordance with Hindu rights that would however not debar the State Government from making inquiry about existence of such a marriage and act on that in order to grant pensionary and other benefits to the children of Yogmaya Devi. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this exercise can be done by the Bank itself instead of relegating the petitioners before the civil court which would involve a long drawn proceedings.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the claim of the petitioners, it is open for the Bank to get any inquiry conducted as to whether the petitioners are the legitimate daughter and son of late Kashi Prasad Sharma. If such inquiry is conducted it will necessarily entail opportunity of hearing to opposite party nos.4/1 to 4/6 herein. If such an inquiry is conducted and based on such result, if it is found that petitioners are legitimate daughter and son of late Kashi Prasad Sharma then the Bank would be obliged to provide necessary benefits to the petitioners to the extent they are entitled but without prejudice to the rights, if any, of opposite party nos.4/1 to 4/6 to such benefits in the estate of late Kashi Prasad Sharma and also to raise any further objection in this regard before the competent court. If, however, the Bank arrives at a conclusion that it is not possible for it to decide such an issue for good and valid reasons then of course, the petitioners would have no other alternative but to initiate appropriate proceedings before the civil court for obtaining a succession certificate or declaration of their rights wherein they will have to implead opposite party nos.4/1 to 4/6 as defendants and based on such exercise whatever be its results, the rights of the parties would be determined and accordingly, the Bank shall do the needful for release of post-retiral dues etc of its employee concerned. As regards post-retiral dues already paid to opposite party nos.4/1 to 4/6, if the petitioners are entitled to any share then they will have to initiate separate proceedings against such parties as per law, if otherwise permissible.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of."

6. Sri Srivastava, has therefore submitted that in earlier writ petition filed in the year 2004 no prayer for any appointment under dying-in-harness was claimed. Such appointment could have not been claimed as both the petitioners of that writ petition were minor at that point of time.

7. The father of the petitioner died on 18.06.1999 but such claim has been firstly asked preferring a representation dated 30.05.2023. Sri Srivastava has also informed that though the first/legally wedded wife of the deceased employee namely, Maya Sharma had claimed appointment under dying-in-harness rules and the same was declined by the bank as per the policy of the bank. Therefore, Sri Srivastava has stated that once the claim seeking appointment under dying-in-harness rules has been turned down by the bank in respect of one of the dependent of the deceased employee, another dependent after lapse of substantial time may not claim such appointment, inasmuch as claiming the compassionate appointment is not a right but such appointment is given so as to provide some respite of the family of the deceased employee and if there is an inordinate delay claiming such benefit, the benefit may be turned down by the competent authority. In support of his submission Sri Srivastava, placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2022 SC 783, Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Gouri Devi and State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175.

8. Sri Srivastava has also informed that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 03.02.2023 (supra) the bank is willing to make payment of dues but the require documents i.e. succession certificate etc. have not been provided to the bank, therefore, such amount may not be paid. However, as soon as the required formalities are completed, the payment of the dues would be paid strictly in terms of the judgement and order dated 03.02.2023 (supra).

9. In the written instructions the authority concerned has categorically indicated that due to non availability of the date of Birth, Marriage status of six children (Six children from Ms. Maya Sharma) and non submission of any succession certificate by Mr. Gyanu Sharma and Ms. Arushi Sharma, Branch could not ascertained the criteria as mentioned above for calculation of family pension.

In view of above, the amount of family pension could not been ascertained. However, P.F. and Gratuity has already been paid as mentioned above.

10. Sri D. P. Gupta, replying the aforesaid objection has submitted that the son of the second wife of the deceased employee is entitled for seeking appropriate appointment under dying-in-harness rules. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in re: Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and others; AIR 2000 SC 735. On being confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why immediately after death of the deceased employee suitable appointment has not been asked, he has stated on the basis of instructions that the first wife of the deceased employee had claimed and that claim was turned down. He has also stated that at the time of death of the deceased employee the petitioner was minor. On being further confronted that as to whether the dying-in-harness appointment may be claimed after passing substantial time from the death of the deceased employee inasmuch as the law is against on such claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that since no one has given appointment under dying-in-harness rules in the issue in question, therefore, he has claimed. On being again asked as to why such claim has not been raised by his mother when the first writ petition was filed by him and his sister, he could not explain the reason thereof.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since this Court vide judgement and order dated 03.02.2023 directed the petitioner to complete all required formalities to get the retired/terminal dues etc. from the bank for which the bank is ready to make payment as soon as those formalities are completed and so far as the claim for suitable appointment under dying-in-harness rules is concerned, the law is trite on the point that such appointment may not be claimed after lapse of substantial time inasmuch as in the present case such claim has been raised after about 25 years. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents-bank to provide appointment under dying-in-harness rules. Notably, this is a peculiar case, where the first/legally wedded wife of the deceased employee had claimed suitable appointment under dying-in-harness rules and that claim has already been turned down by the bank way back, therefore, that fact may not provide any advantage to the petitioner to claim such appointment after about 25 years.

12. However, it is needless to say that as soon as the petitioner and others completed all required formalities which are necessary to get all terminal/ post retiral dues etc. in terms of order dated 03.02.2023, same would be paid to them expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months.

13. In view of the aforesaid terms, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 11.4.2025

Reena/-

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)