[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Emrencia Kerketta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:37775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.5100 of 2021
------
Emrencia Kerketta, W/o Late Astik Munda, Village + P.O.
Gamhariya, P.S. Baharagora, District East Singhbhum, presently
residing at House No.166, New Baradwari, P.O. Sakchi, P.S. Sakchi,
Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Home
Department, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Hatia,
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General, South Chotanagpur Division,
Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh.
3. Deputy Inspector General (Budget), Jharkhand, having its
office at Project Building, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
4. Superintendent of Police, Chatra, having his office at P.O., P.S.
& District Chatra-825401.
5. Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, having its
Office at P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Janak Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV
Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate
------
05/ 16.12.2025
Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of having
Succession Certificate obtained from the Court of Civil Jurisdiction
i.e. the District Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in
Succession Certificate Case No.37 of 2015, filed under Section 372
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a settlement due of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh), has not been disbursed to the
petitioner. She also claims interest.
2025:JHHC:37775
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits
that the Succession Certificate was issued to the petitioner in view
of the letter which was addressed to this petitioner vide Memo
No.128/Pension dated 11.07.2015, issued by the Superintendent of
Police, Chatra. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for
the aforesaid settlement due of Rs.10 lakh, along with the interest,
which the respondents have illegally withheld.
4. The petitioner's counsel submits that though the
respondent - State (employer) has already recommended payment
of Rs.10 lakh, in favour of the petitioner, but it is the Senior
Accounts Officer in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A
& E), Jharkhand, under whose signature the Letter dated
05.03.2020 was issued, rejecting her claim, posing ground that
since the petitioner is the third wife of the deceased, she is not
entitled for the said benefit.
5. After hearing the parties, I find that the deceased - Astik
Munda, was an employee of the Police Department. He was a
Constable.
5.1. The settlement due of Rs.10 lakh is still lying with the
Police Department at Chatra. The petitioner being the wife of late
Astik Munda, claimed the said amount when respondent No.4 -
Superintendent of Police, Chatra, vide Letter as contained in Memo
No.128/Pension dated 11.07.2015, directed the petitioner to obtain
a Succession Certificate.
5.2. The petitioner filed Succession Certificate Case No.37 of
2015, in terms of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
2025:JHHC:37775
The said Succession Certificate case was allowed by the District
Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide order dated
22.09.2018. The Court had ordered to issue Succession Certificate
in favour of this petitioner with respect of the debts and securities
amounting to Rs.10 lakh, along with accrued interest. A certified
copy of order dated 22.09.2018 passed in Succession Certificate
Case No.37 of 2015 has been annexed with this writ petition as
Annexure-4.
6. After going through the order passed in Succession
Certificate Case No.37 of 2015, I find that it was pleaded by this
petitioner that the deceased - Astik Munda, was earlier married to
one Lily Munda, who died issueless. After the death of Lily Munda,
one Rukmini Munda, was kept in the house to look after the old
parents of Astik Munda. It has been stated that the old parents
treated her as daughter-in-law, but there was no marriage. The
petitioner thereafter married Astik Munda, and a certificate of
marriage was already issued by the Marriage Officer, Jamshedpur.
6.1. The District Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur,
while deciding the Succession Certificate case, took into
consideration the marriage certificate and the letter issued by
respondent No.4, wherein they have sought the Succession
Certificate.
6.2. The District Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur,
after considering the evidence on record, which suggests that the
deceased had married this petitioner after the death of first wife
and there was no other marriage, held that the Succession
2025:JHHC:37775
Certificate should be issued in the name of this petitioner.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been issued
the Succession Certificate in respect of the debts and securities
amounting to Rs.10 lakh, which is the subject matter of this writ
petition. Since the Succession Certificate has been obtained, the
respondents should have disbursed the amount in favour of this
petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the
petitioner had already given an undertaking to the effect that if
there is any rival claim, she will satisfy the same and will also
indemnify the employer.
8. The respondent - Principal Accountant General (A & E),
Jharkhand, is not disbursing the claimed amount of the petitioner,
on the ground that the petitioner is third wife of the deceased.
9. The aforesaid ground taken by the Principal Accountant
General, cannot be accepted in view of the findings arrived at by
the District Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Succession
Certificate Case No.37 of 2015. It is true that the deceased - Astik
Munda, was initially married with one Lily Munda, but there is
nothing on record to suggest that Astik Munda was married to
Rukmini Munda. The marriage certificate between this petitioner
and the deceased suggests that their marriage was registered and
further in the judgment, there is nothing to suggest that the
deceased - Astik Munda, had any other surviving wife at the time
of marriage with the petitioner. Thus, the ground taken by the
respondent - Principal Accountant General is not correct.
10. The respondent No.5 - Principal Accountant General
2025:JHHC:37775
(A & E), Jharkhand, is directed to pass an order to release the
amount in favour of this petitioner, who is the holder of the
Succession Certificate. The amount should be paid within six weeks.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No order
as to costs.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
16th December, 2025
Prashant. Cp-2
Uploaded on 18.12.2025
