Rajeshwari Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 190 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Letters Patent Appeal No.1476 of 2018
                                         In
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4916 of 2018
     ======================================================

Rajeshwari Devi, Wife of Late Ajab Lal Pandit @ Neelkushum, Resident of Village/Mohalla-Tilakpur, P.O.-Manjhauli Matihani, P.S.-Belhar, Distt.- Banka.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Higher Education (Education Department), Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat. Patna.

3. The Vice-Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur

4. The Secretary, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur

5. Assistant Secretary Establishment, Tilka Manghi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.

6. The Finance Officer, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University Bhagalpur.

7. Deputy Secretary, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.

8. Principal, M/S S.S.V. College, Kahalgaon.

9. Nirmal Devi @ Nirmala Sah, Daughter of Hari Prasad Sah, Resident of Mohalla-Jogsar, towards Masjid, Budha Nath road, P.S.-Kotwali, Distt.- Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Prashant Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, AC to AAG-15 For the University : Mr. Diwakar Yadav, Advocate For respondent no.9 : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate Mr. Suman Kumar, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA)

Date : 17-01-2023

In I.A. No.7992 of 2018

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties on the

point of limitation.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed for Patna High Court L.P.A No.1476 of 2018 dt.17-01-2023

condoning the delay of 6 days in preferring the present appeal.

3. For the reasons mentioned in this interlocutory

application, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented from

sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

4. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed

and the delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

In L.P.A. No. 1476 of 2018

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The present L.P.A. is directed against the judgment

dated 29.08.2018 passed in CWJC No. 4916 of 2018 by the

learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the

civil writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case is that in the month of May,

1962, the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Ajab Lal

Pandit "Neelkusum" and from the wedlock, a daughter, namely

Archna Kumari, was born in the year 1987. The said Ajab Lal

Pandit "Neelkusum" was working as Lecturer in S.S.V. College,

Kahalgaon on being appointed on 02.07.1977. In the year 1986,

the husband of the appellant filed Matrimonial Case No. 12 of

1986 for dissolution of his marriage by a decree of divorce. The

learned District Judge vide ex-parte order dated 16.04.1988

allowed the petition by granting decree of divorce. After obtaining

decree of divorce, the husband of the appellant solemnized Patna High Court L.P.A No.1476 of 2018 dt.17-01-2023

marriage with the respondent no.9 on 07.06.1989 and out of that

wedlock, a daughter was born. The appellant filed Marriage Case

No. 31 of 1989 before the learned District Judge, Bhagalpur for

revocation of the decree of divorce passed against her. During the

pendency of the aforesaid marriage case, the husband of the

appellant died on 08.11.1992. The learned District Judge vide

order dated 29.01.1993 dismissed the aforesaid marriage case on

account of death of her husband. Thereafter, the appellant filed

Misc. Appeal No.174 of 1993 before this Court, which was also

dismissed on the same ground vide order dated 10.05.1994. The

appellant filed several representations before the authority

concerned for redressal of her grievances, but when no

communication was received from the respondent authority, the

appellant sought information under the Right to Information Act

about status of her representations as well as the status of death-

cum-retiral benefits of Late Ajab Lal Pandit. Thereafter, the

University supplied the information vide letter dated 05.05.2012

wherein she was informed that all the death-cum-retiral benefits

and also the compassionate appointment had been given to the

private respondent, who claimed to be 2 nd wife of Late Ajab Lal

Pandit "Neelkusum". Being aggrieved, the petitioner (appellant

herein) preferred CWJC No.4916 of 2018. The learned Single

Judge, finding the writ petition totally misconceived, dismissed the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1476 of 2018 dt.17-01-2023

appellant's writ petition. Hence, the present L.P.A.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that the appellant never remarried after the ex-parte decree of

divorce and tried to get at least half share of Late Ajab Lal Pandit

pensionary benefit including gratuity, leave encashment, group

insurance amount etc., but the University only assured her and not

paid anything despite the appellant submitting the succession

certificate dated 23.01.1993. He has further submitted that the

appellant is a rustic lady having little means of income and has

now grown very old as such she requires financial support from

her husband's property which includes death-cum-retiral benefit of

Late Ajab Lal Pandit, at least half of the same on account of being

not married till date.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that ex-parte decree of divorce was passed by the

learned court after due notice to the appellant and upon

examination of the whole case including the evidence of the

witnesses. The appellant did not challenge the ex-parte decree of

divorce during the life time of Late Ajab Lal Pandit "Neelkusum".

The respondent no.9 solemnized marriage with Late Ajab Lal

Pandit "Neelkusum" on 07.06.1989 after the decree of divorce was

passed. The learned counsel for the respondent no.9 has submitted

that one daughter was born out of the said wedlock of Kumari Patna High Court L.P.A No.1476 of 2018 dt.17-01-2023

Nirmala Sah with Late Ajab Lal Pandit "Neelkusum". The

respondent no.9 and her daughter have been nominated by Late

Ajab Lal Pandit in the service records. The respondent University

has rightly not released any payment in favour of the appellant.

6. Having considered the material available on record

and further considering the rival submission, the fact becomes

clear that the appellant was the first wife of Late Ajab Lal Pandit

"Neelkusum" and after getting decree of divorce against her, he

had married with respondent no.9 and till date, the decree of

divorce stands and it has not been set aside by any competent

court.

7. Moreover, from the service records of the deceased

employee namely, Late Ajab Lal Pandit "Neelkusum", which has

been brought on record by the respondent no.9 by filing a second

supplementary counter affidavit, it transpires that in column no.5,

which is with regard to marital status, it has been mentioned that

"I have a wife". In column no.7, which is with regard to

nomination for GPF, the names of Smt. Kumari Nirmala Sah

(wife) and Kumari Aprajita Kashyap (daughter) have been

mentioned. Similarly, in column no.9, which is with regard to

nomination for D.C.R. gratuity and family pension, the names of

Smt. Kumari Nirmala Sah (wife) and Kumari Aprajita Kashyap

(daughter) have been mentioned as nominees. If the name of the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1476 of 2018 dt.17-01-2023

appellant has not been mentioned as nominee in the service book

of late Ajab Lal Pandit "Neelkusum" for receiving post death

benefits, the appellant could not lawfully claim any such benefit

and she is not entitled for the same.

8. In the light of discussion made hereinabove and under

the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the

learned Single Judge has committed any error which calls for

interference by this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction.

We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single

Judge.

9. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is

dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/-

AFR/NAFR                A.F.R
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          23.01.2023
Transmission Date       NA