Jharkhand High Court
Niraj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 7353 of 2019
Niraj Kumar, son of Late Ram Dahin Singh, Resident of - Sagarpur, P.O.
and P.S. - Makdumpur, District - Jahanabad, Bihar
... PETITIONER
Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. Secretary, Water Resources and Irrigation Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Executive Engineer, Water Irrigation Division, Jamtara
4. Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara.
... ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, AC to AAG-IV
14/10.08.2021 In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken
up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers
have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held
through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio
and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being
disposed of finally.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction
upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground on account
of death of his father and further to pay all the death-cum-retiral benefits
with interest @12% per annum from the date of due till the date of actual
payment.
4. Facts
of the case in brief as has been delineated in the writ petition
is that petitioner's father, who was working to the post of peon in Irrigation
Department, Jamtara, died in harness on 30.01.2007. After his death,
petitioner preferred representation regarding his appointment on
compassionate ground. Petitioner was asked to submit Succession
Certificate. After obtaining the Succession Certificate in Succession Case
RC
No. 1/2009, issued by the Sub-Judge-1st, Jahanabad, Bihar, dated
03.09.2010, petitioner submitted the same along with required certificates.
Thereafter, case of the petitioner was forwarded vide Letter No. 374, dated
27.10.2011 by the respondent no. 3. Since case of the petitioner has not
been considered by the respondents, he knocked door of this Court by filing
instant writ petition.
5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, very
fairly submits that he is not pressing compassionate appointment for the
present rather he is claiming payment of retiral benefits along with his
sister, which would be paid to them in view of Succession Certificate
issued by the competent Court and also in view of P.F. Certificate. Learned
counsel very fairly submits that since both brothers and sisters have
claimed for payment of retiral benefits, in view of settled principles of law
and in view of equitable justice, the respondents may be directed to pay
retiral benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law taking into
consideration the Succession Certificate and P.F. Certificate. Learned
counsel further argues that petitioner's father died on 30.01.2007 but till
date he has not received the death-cum-retiral benefits and as such he is
entitled for the interest also for delayed payment in view of the decision
rendered in the case of The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. Smt.
Dinavahi Lakshmi kameswari In Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2021 [Arising
out of SLP (C) No. 12553 of 2020].
6. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed.
7. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, AC to learned AAG-IV representing State argues
that entire facts have been brought to the knowledge of the State by way of
rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Initially petitioner was praying for
compassionate appointment, which was not acceptable in view of settled
proposition of law. However, since from rejoinder it has now been gathered
that petitioner is rescinding claim of compassionate appointment, claim of
death-cum-retiral benefits only shall be considered in accordance with law.
If petitioner files representation annexing a copy of the rejoinder and
required documents including Succession Certificate, P.F. Certificate, the
same shall be considered in accordance with law. Learned counsel further
RC
argues that since petitioner's sister is also one of the legal heir of the
deceased, the entire money may be distributed equally amongst them.
8. Be that as it may, having heard counsel for the parties and after
perusing the documents, this Court is of the considered view that since
petitioner has rescinded the claim for compassionate appointment and now
pressing claim for payment of retiral benefits, the same may be extended to
him taking into account the Succession Certificate and P.F. Certificate.
Petitioner has fairly conceded that if the respondents so desires, they may
pay 50% of the amount to him and rest 50% to his sister who is also legal
heir of the deceased employee and no objection has been raised from either
sides as they are siblings.
9. Considering fair submission of the parties, particularly the
petitioner, I, hereby, direct the respondents that if fresh representation is
filed by the petitioner annexing the required documents including the
Succession Certificate, Providing Fund Certificate etc., the same shall be
considered in accordance with law and petitioner shall be paid death-cum-
retiral benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/
production of a copy of this order. Since the decease employee (father of
the petitioner) died on 30.01.2007 and till date retiral benefits have not
been paid to the legal heirs and as such taking into consideration the law
laid down in the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi
kameswari (Supra) the respondents are directed to consider for payment of
statutory interest also along with retiral benefits.
10. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ
petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC
RC
