Jharkhand High Court
Geeta Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 February, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 866 of 2023
Geeta Devi, aged about 44 years, wife of Late Awadhesh Prasad, Resident of
Telipara, Near Bajrangbali Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chairman-cum-Chief Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikash
Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.
Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Director Accounts, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Engineering
Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam
Ltd. Electric Supply Circle, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad
5. The Executive Engineering, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd. Electric
Supply Division, Govindpur, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.
Dhanbad ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the JUVNL : Mr. M. K. Roy, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III
---
th
09/8 February 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"i. For quashing the order dated 24.12.2022 contained in Memo No. 2533
(Annexure-8) passed by respondent no. 4 whereby and whereunder the
representation of the petitioner for payment of family pension has been
rejected without considering the fact that competent Court of law has passed
judgment dated 01.02.2016 in Succession Certificate Case No. 51/2013 in
favour of the petitioner for payment of dues of deceased husband of the
petitioner to the petitioner.
ii. For payment of arrear of family pension as well as current family pension
along with statutory interest to the petitioner.
iii. For payment of retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner.
And/Or
For issuance of any other appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/direction(s) as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of
this case."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of family
pension of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents on the sole
ground that the petitioner is not the legally married wife of the deceased
employee. The learned counsel has referred to the order dated 01.02.2016
passed in Succession Certificate Case No.51 of 2013 and he submits that the
succession certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Court and it
was also declared that she was the legally wedded wife of the ex-employee of
the respondents namely Awadesh Prasad. The learned counsel for petitioner
has also submitted that the said order passed in the case of succession case has
attained finality. He submits that once there is declaration that the petitioner is
legally married wife of the ex-employee, there was no occasion for the
respondents to not rely on such judgement and question the legality and
validity of such judgement while dismissing the case of the petitioner for grant
of pension.
4. The learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, while opposing
the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that the application for succession
was filed for the limited purpose for getting the money from the bank account
which was being maintained by the deceased employee and, therefore, the
same has no bearing in the present case. The learned counsel has also
submitted that the deceased employee had two children and one of them had
expired but so far as second child is concerned, he had appeared before the
authority and opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of family pension.
However, it is not in dispute that two sons of deceased employee namely
Kishor Kumar and Manoj Kumar were party in the succession case and Kishor
Kumar had expired. The learned counsel has also submitted that in such
circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference and
without prejudiced to this submission he submits that in case the family
pension is directed to be granted to the petitioner, the right of son born out of
the first wedlock of the deceased is also required to be considered and,
therefore, the authorities should be directed to pass a fresh order. However, the
age of the son of the deceased is not available on the record.
5. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that Succession Certificate
Case no.51 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner in which two sons of the
deceased employees were also made parties and the succession certificate was
issued vide judgement dated 01.02.2016. While granting the succession
certificate the court specifically recorded a finding that the petitioner was the
legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. It further appears from the
judgement passed in the succession certificate case that the same was filed
primarily for taking the money from the bank account of the deceased
employee maintained in Allahabad Bank amounting to Rupees 1,03,732.04.
This Court finds that the court had recorded a clear finding regarding the status
of the petitioner but in the impugned reasoned order dated 24.12.2022, the
authority has questioned the correctness of issuance of the succession
certificate by stating that certain facts were not placed before the court granting
the succession certificate.
6. This Court is of the considered view that once there is adjudication by a
competent court of civil jurisdiction there was no occasion for the authority to
say that the materials were not produced before the court and refuse to consider
the succession certificate.
7. The refusal to grant family pension to petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, which is
contrary to the findings of the court in the succession case, cannot be sustained
in the eyes of the law and, accordingly, impugned order is set aside and matter
is remitted back to respondent authority for passing fresh order. While passing
the fresh order, the authority shall also consider the claim of the son of the
deceased employee on family pension by issuing a notice to him. The fresh
order be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order along with a representation and a copy of the writ records. The
representation be filed by the petitioner within the period of fifteen days from
today.
8. This writ petition is accordingly is disposed of.
9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
