Jharkhand High Court
Butan Devi vs The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited ... on 9 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:11004-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 363 of 2024
---
Butan Devi, aged about 61 years, wife of Late Gobind Lohar,
resident of ET/1, CCL Colony, Patratu Thermal Power Station,
Patratu, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh. .....Appellant
Versus
1. The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its
Secretary, Engineering Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi.
2. The General Manager (Administration and Legal), Jharkhand
Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, HEC, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The General Manager, Patratu Thermal Power Station, P.O. &
P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh.
4. Kaushalya Devi, aged about not known to the Petitioner,
daughter of Jagdeo Lohar, resident of village Saliya, P.O. & P.S.
Patratu, District Ramgarh.
5. The Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through its
General Manager (Administration and Legal), Engineering
Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
.....Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate
For the Resp.-JUVNL : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Mayank Deep, Advocate
For the Resp. No.4 : Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, Advocate
---
07/ Dated: 09.04.2025
Heard both sides.
2. This Letter Patent Appeal is preferred against the
judgment dated 15.04.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S)
No. 4309 of 2023.
3. One Gobind Lohar, who was employed in JUVN Ltd.
(1st respondent) died. Before his death, he had nominated the
2025:JHHC:11004-DB
appellant herein, as the person entitled to receive family pension
and informed the same to the 1st respondent.
4. It appears that the 4th respondent approached the 1st
respondent and disputed the claim of the appellant to get family
pension claiming to be having a preferential right as the 1st wife of
the deceased and disputing the right of the appellant to get the
family pension on the ground that the appellant was a second wife.
It was also pointed out by the counsel for the 4th respondent that
there was an order of maintenance in favour of the respondent No.
4 and Rs. 3,000/- per month was being deducted from the salary
of the ex-employee throughout and she was also being paid the
pension.
5. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge
held that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent
No. 4 cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction and one of them
needs to get a Succession Certificate from a court of competent
jurisdiction and that in the meantime, pension shall not be paid
by the 1st respondent. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed.
6. The question whether the appellant is the second wife
of the deceased or the respondent No.4 is the first wife of the
deceased was rightly held by the Single Judge to be incapable of
adjudication in writ jurisdiction. Since the nomination admittedly
existed in the employer's records of the appellant, it is the duty of
the 1st respondent to make payment of the family pension to the
appellant unless the 4th respondent approaches the Family Court
2025:JHHC:11004-DB
or the Civil Court as the case may be, and gets an adjudication in
her favour that she is the first wife and that she is entitled to the
family pension. It is not open to the 1st respondent to stop the
payment of family pension to the appellant merely because the 4th
respondent claims to be the first wife of the deceased. Any
adjudication which the 4th respondent may have obtained in a
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the deceased employee
cannot be given any value because the said proceeding is a
summary proceeding and the question whether the respondent
No.4 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased cannot be decided
in such a summary proceeding.
7. Therefore, to the extent the learned Single Judge has
held that one of the parties i.e., the appellant or the 4th
respondent should get a Succession Certificate from a Court of
competent jurisdiction, the order of the learned Single Judge does
not appear to be correct.
The learned Single Judge ought to have directed the
4th respondent to get the declaration about the validity of her
marriage with the deceased in a proceeding in a competent forum
in which the appellant is also impleaded as a party.
8. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is
set-aside and respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the family
pension to the appellant including arrears of family pension which
have been withheld from the date they have been withheld.
Liberty is granted to the 4th respondent to approach the
2025:JHHC:11004-DB
competent forum to obtain a declaration about the validity of her
marriage with the deceased in a proceeding to which the appellant
also is a party.
9. In the event the 4th respondent succeeds in such a
proceeding, then the respondents 1 to 3 shall pay the family
pension to her.
10. Accordingly, the LPA stands disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk/vikas
