Soni Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 4713 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Soni Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its ... on 1 May, 2024

Author: S.N. Pathak

Bench: S. N. Pathak

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                 W.P.(S) No. 2470 of 2022

         Soni Devi                                               ... ... Petitioner
                                            Vs.

      1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing
         Director, Having office at Koyla Bhawan, Saraidhella, District - Dhanbad
      2. The Director (Personnel), BCCL, having office at Koyla Bhawan,
         Saraidhella, Dhanbad
      3. The area Finance Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, PB Area, P.O. and
         P.S. - Bhaga, Dhanbad
      4. The Project Office, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Borragarh Colliery, P.B.
         Area, Bhaga, Dhanbad
      5. The Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad.
      6. The Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad, having office at
         - Police Line, Hirapur, Dhanbad.
                                                           ... ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the CMPF Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate

13/01.05.2024 Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay amount of Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment, Arrear of Dearness Allowance and other retiral dues of the deceased employee - Late Dhananjay Kumar Choudhary, who died in harness on 24.05.2021. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay interest @18% per annum till the date of payment made to the petitioner.

3. Petitioner's husband, who was working as a Clerk in the respondent - BCCL, died in harness on 24.05.2021. Petitioner's name is already entered in medical book and other records of the respondent

and they have a son namely Krishna Kumar. After death of the husband, she filed a representation before the respondent no. 1 on 03.01.2022, requesting therein to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground and to pay death-cum-retiral dues. Petitioner also filed representation before the respondents on 08.10.2021 and 06.05.2022 and also met personally.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that her deceased husband had earlier married to one Usha Kumari, who deserted the husband for more than 15 - 16 years and thereafter petitioner was married with him. it is further case of the petitioner that in entire service excerpts, her name finds place and as such she is the rightful claimant of the compassionate employment as also for death-cum-retiral benefits. When no heed was paid, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is the legally married wife of the deceased husband, she is entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits as also appointment on compassionate ground as she is also mother of a minor son. Learned counsel further submits that during lifetime never any claim was made by the first wife rather she was not living with the deceased husband for more than 15-20 years. Learned counsel further submits that on date of death when representation was made for compassionate appointment and for grant of death-cum-retiral benefits, there was no other claimant and as such a direction be given to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for death-cum-reitral benefits as well as compassionate appointment. Petitioner is facing great hardship and is not able to take care of the minor son as she is not having any source of income.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents places heavy reliance on different circulars and submits that second wife is not entitled for any pensionary benefits and son and daughter are also not entitled for compassionate appointment. First wife is entitled for all the benefits and the son out of the wedlock of the deceased husband and first wife only is entitled for compassionate appointment.

7. Before delving deep into the matter it would be apposite to consider entitlement of the parties, as to who is entitled for death-cum- retiral benefits and who is entitled for compassionate appointment. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 wherein it has been held that "Children of second void marriage is legitimate and entitled to share family pension and death- cum-retirement gratuity along with wife and children of first marriage." Further as per service law, in case of dispute of settlement of retiral benefits, the government could hold enquiry about factum of second marriage and disburse the benefits to first wife and their children as well as to children born from second wife. Relevant paras of the judgment passed in case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:

"13. But then it is not necessary for us to consider if Narain Lal could have been charged of misconduct having contracted a second marriage when his first wife was living as no disciplinary proceedings were held against him during his lifetime. In the present case, we are concerned only with the question as to who is entitled to the family pension and death- cum-retirement gratuity on the death of Narain Lal. When there are two claimants to the pensionary benefits of a deceased employee and there is no nomination wherever required State Government has to hold an inquiry as to the rightful claimant. Disbursement of pension cannot wait till a civil court pronounces upon the respective rights of the parties. That would certainly be a long drawn affair. Doors of civil courts are always open to any party after and even before a decision is reached by the State Government as to who is entitled to pensionary benefits. Of course, inquiry conducted by the State Government cannot be a sham affair and it could also not be arbitrary. Decision has to be taken in a bona fide reasonable and rational manner. In the present case an inquiry was held which cannot be termed as sham. Result of the inquiry was that Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal lived as husband and wife since 1963. A presumption does arise, therefore, that marriage of Yogmaya Devi with Narain Lal was in accordance with Hindu rites and all ceremonies connected with a valid Hindu marriage were performed. This presumption Rameshwari Devi has been unable to rebut. Nevertheless, that, however, does not make the marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal as legal. Of course, when there is a charge of bigamy under Section 494 IPC strict

proof of solemnisation of the second marriage with due observance of rituals and ceremonies had been insisted upon."

8. Since the representation was made by the present petitioner for consideration of her case on the point of compassionate appointment, if the case of petitioner falls within the zone of consideration, the same can be considered as per the rules for compassionate appointment. Regarding death-cum-retiral benefits, admittedly petitioner being the second wife is not entitled for the same but the son born out of the wedlock from the deceased husband is fully entitled for all the benefits including death-cum-retiral benefits and pensionary benefits.

9. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement and in view of the law laid down in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) this Court cannot take any other view other than what has been taken in the case her case. Similar view has been reiterated in the case of Babita Devi Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2020) 1 JLJR.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11. Let it be made clear that the emoluments shall be distributed as per the law and after proper identification. The parties shall cooperate in the matter.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)