Patna High Court
Rekha Devi vs Smt. Indrani Devi on 10 July, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24017 of 2019
======================================================
Smt. Pinki Sharma, W/o Mukesh Sharma, D/o Late Bhagirath Sharma @
Bhagirath Mistry, resident of Mohalla- Safiabad, P.S. Naya Ram Nagar,
District- Munger at Present resident of ward no. 20, Rajendra Nagar,
Sonhauli, P.S. and Dist.- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Smt. Indrani Devi R/o- Village- Mahgama, P.S.- Mahgama, District- Godda
(Jharkhand).
2. Sri Sonu Kumar S/o- Smt. Indrani Devi, resident of Village- Mahgama, P.S.-
Mahgama, District- Godda (Jharkhand).
3. Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Raj Mahal Project, Eastern Coal Field
Limited, Lalmatiya Colliery, P.S.- Lalmatiya, District- Godda (Jharkhand).
4. The Chief General Manager, Raj Mahal Project, Eastern Coal Field Limited,
Lalmatiya Colliery, P.S.- Lalmatiya, District- Godda (Jharkhand).
5. The Personnal Officer, Raj Mahal Project, Eastern Coal Field Limited,
Lalmatiya Colliery, P.S.- Lalmatiya, District- Godda (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate
For the ECFL : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp Nos.1&2 : Mr. Dineshwar Pandey, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-07-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a
direction upon the respondents to ensure payment of all the
benefits of her deceased-husband, who was an employee under
the office of the respondents no.3 to 5 and died in harness on
24.01.2001
, while working as Foreman.
3. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to
note here that the sole-petitioner died during the pendency of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.24017 of 2019 dt.10-07-2025
writ petition and the daughter of the sole petitioner (respondent
no.3) has been transposed/substituted pursuant to the order of
this Court.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that
the marriage of the original petitioner was solemnized with
Bhagirathi Mistri on 16.04.1975 at Safiabad in the district of
Munger. Out of their wedlock, a daughter was born; who is
presently petitioner herein and has been pursuing their case.
While the erstwhile employee was residing at Lalmatiya along
with his wife and daughter, he developed some illicit
relationship with private respondent no.1 and started residing
with her. Subsequently, the original petitioner was ousted from
her matrimonial home. A Maintenance Case bearing no. 52(M)
of 1996 came to be filed under Section 125 of the CrPC. Upon
notice, the erstwhile employee entered his appearance and after
hearing the parties, learned Magistrate has directed to pay
Rs.450/- per month to the original petitioner as maintenance. It
is further contended that during the pendency of the matrimonial
suit, the erstwhile employee also filed Divorce Suit under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act; however, in the
meanwhile, he died in harness, leaving behind the petitioner and
her daughter. Upon death of the erstwhile employee, the
petitioner approached the authorities of the Eastern Coal Field
Limited for settlement of death-cum-retiral claim; however,
Patna High Court CWJC No.24017 of 2019 dt.10-07-2025
since there was some dispute with regard to nomination made
by the erstwhile employee, who nominated the name of
respondents no.1 and 2; hence, the original petitioner was asked
to bring succession certificate. The original petitioner filed Title
Suit No.57/2002, which finally came to be decreed in favour of
the petitioner on 14.01.2013, the copy of the judgment and
decree has been placed on record as Annexure-1. The case of the
petitioner is rest upon the judgment and decree passed in favour
of the original petitioner, basing upon which it is submitted that
notwithstanding the fact that she declared as legally wedded
wife of the erstwhile employee, denial of death-cum-retiral
benefit is absolutely unjustified and illegal.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further
contended that the respondent authorities in collusion with the
private respondents, in hot haste manner distributed all the
death-cum-retiral benefits in their favour without waiting for
order by a competent authority/court, which also shows mala
fide on their part.
6. Referring to the order of this Court dated
06.01.2020, it is further urged that the learned Court has
categorically directed that until further orders, no remaining
payment shall be made to any of the parties; nonetheless, the
private respondent no.1 was allowed family pension till her
death. All the more, the respondent no.2 has also been allowed
Patna High Court CWJC No.24017 of 2019 dt.10-07-2025
appointment on compassionate ground.
7. Upon notice, private respondents no.1 and 2 entered
their appearance and made preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the case on account of territorial jurisdiction,
besides other submissions.
8. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.5
has also been filed.
9. Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate for the Eastern Coal
Field Limited has submitted that admittedly the erstwhile
employee died on 24.01.2001 while he was in service in Eastern
Coal Field Limited having Unique Man No.403767 from the
post of Foreman. Referring to the employees service record
(Annexure-A to the writ petition), learned Advocate for the
Eastern Coal Field Limited, has vehemently submitted that the
erstwhile employee had nominated the name of Smt. Indra Devi
as nominee for employment in the event of his premature death
as also further for receiving Gratuity. Based upon the service
record, the Eastern Coal Field Limited had extended the benefit
of Gratuity and payment of CMPF in favour of the respondent
no.1. It is further contended that CMPF Authority has not been
made as a party to the writ petition whereas it is the CMPF,
which is authorized to pay family pension and in absence of
CMPF as a party respondent, the respondent no.1 was allowed
family pension till her death.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24017 of 2019 dt.10-07-2025
10. Learned Advocate for the Eastern Coal Field
Limited further informed this Court that Miscellaneous Case
No.108 of 2017 was also filed by the original petitioner in the
Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in Title Suit
(Matrimonial) No.57/2022, for execution of the judgment and
decree dated 14.01.2023, however, it came to be dismissed, thus
till date the judgment and decree has not been executed. He
further submitted that even after getting judgment and decree in
her favour, the respondent no.1 has never approached before the
authorities concerned and after this belated stage, the present
writ petition came to be filed. While concluding his
argument(s), a plea of jurisdiction has also been taken by the
learned Advocate for the Eastern Coal Field Limited that since
the erstwhile employee superannuated from the State of
Jharkhand, the present writ petition is not maintainable on
account of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
11. Before parting with the case, it would be proper to
deal with the preliminary objection raised by the respondent.
Well settled it is that if a part of the action arises with the
territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the same shall very well
be considered by the High Court, within whose jurisdiction the
part of the cause of action has arisen and if the party
successfully established that his/her legal right is at stake. In
essence territorial jurisdiction in part, retiral benefits cases is
Patna High Court CWJC No.24017 of 2019 dt.10-07-2025
about ensuring that the retired employee(s) and his/her widow
and dependents can access justice in a fair and convenient
manner without being forced to travel to distant place to resolve
their claims. Reference in this regard may be taken to a decision
rendered by the Apex court in the case of Shanti Devi @ Shanti
Mishra v. Union of India and Others [(2010) 10 SCC 766].
12. In view of the afore-noted proposition, this Court
does not find any merit in the preliminary objection, the same
stands overruled.
13. This Court had the occasion to consider the scope
and effect of nomination. In the case of Raj Lakshmi Mishra
and Another v. Chairman cum Managing Director, Canra
Bank and Others [2024 SCC OnLine Pat 7851], wherein
highlighting various rulings of the Apex Court, observed as
follows:-
"13. ......The Apex Court had the occasion
to consider the scope and effect of "nomination"
in case of Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta
& Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 680. Placing reliance
upon an earlier decision rendered in the case of
Sarbati Devi & Anr. Vs. Usha Devi [(1984) 1
SCC 424 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
mere nomination made in favour of a particular
person does not have the effect of conferring on
the nominee any beneficial interest in property
after the death of the person concerned. The
nomination indicates the hand which is authorised
Patna High Court CWJC No.24017 of 2019 dt.10-07-2025
to receive the amount or manage the property. The
property or the amount, as the case may be, can be
claimed by the heirs of the deceased, in
accordance with the law of succession governing
them. The Hon'ble Apex Court while resolving
the issue had in uncertain term quoted that the
nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the
amount so received is to be distributed according
to the law of succession.
14. The learned Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Ati Razia Devi Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. 2016(1) PLJR 835 while
considering the dispute with regard to the liability
of the State to pay Family pension held that "the
very purpose of the nomination is to enable the
State to meet its obligations and get a valid
discharge in respect thereof. Once, the employee
had nominated the other lady to receive the family
pension, the State discharges its obligation
lawfully by paying that lady i.e. the nominee.
Now, if the appellant disputes this fact and claims
to be the first lawfully wedded wife, and thus, in
civil law, entitled to the family pension, then, it is
for her to establish her right, title and interest in
this regard in a court of competent jurisdiction
and get an order to override the nomination made
by the person/employee concerned. The nominee,
in matters where the status and the right is
disputed, is merely a trustee for the rightful owner
thereof, but, of course, subject to the right of
nominee to receive and give a valid discharge.
Nomination by itself, it is well settled, does not
Patna High Court CWJC No.24017 of 2019 dt.10-07-2025
make the person the owner or the rightful
recipient of the property, but holds it in trust for
rightful and lawful recipient or person entitled
therein."
15. On the similar line, in the case of Shiv
Shankar Arya Vs. The Union of India & Ors,
since reported in 2016(2) PLJR 477, the
Division Bench of this Court has held that the
nomination is only authority to receive payments
or properties and give valid discharge to a person
making payment. Nominee would not become an
absolute owner upon the receipt of the properties,
but is a trustee for the heirs.
16. Similarly, in the case of Khushboo
Gupta Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation Of
India Through Executive Director & Ors.,
reported in 2019(4) PLJR 885 where a dispute
has arisen on account of the fact that the deceased
had nominated his mother as nominee and by
virtue of that nomination, after death of the life
assured she was claiming the entire insurance
proceeds. The wife had a grievance that after
obtaining the policy the deceased had solemnized
marriage with the petitioner and thus she was
claiming herself a legally wedded wife of the
deceased life assured and is looking for 50% of
the proceeds of the death claim."
14. Having gone through the rulings, afore-noted, it is
evident that the very purpose of the nomination is to enable the
State to meet its obligations and get a valid discharge in respect
thereof. Once, the employee had nominated a person to receive
Patna High Court CWJC No.24017 of 2019 dt.10-07-2025
family pension, the State discharges its obligation lawfully by
paying that person i.e. the nominee. However, only on account
of the fact that a person being nominee receive benefits he/she
would not become an absolute owner upon receipt thereof but is
only a trustee for the heirs.
15. In the case in hand, admittedly, the respondent
no.1 was made nominee by the erstwhile employee in the
service-book; based upon which the Eastern Coal Field Limited
discharged its obligation by making payment of death-cum-
retiral benefits to her. The petitioner admittedly had approached
this Court after getting succession certificate by a competent
court much later in the year 2019; in the meanwhile, the
respondent no.1, who had genuine grievance based upon the
nomination in the service-book of the erstwhile employee
received the terminal benefits. Nonetheless, the petitioner may
have a valid claim over the amount received by her and it may
be duly claimed by filing an appropriate suit.
16. So far the grievance of the petitioner that the
family pension continued even after the order of this Court on
06.01.2020, also does not find merit consideration, as much
earlier to the order, the entire payments have been made to the
respondent no.1. Moreover, it has rightly been said the
respondent no.1 had been getting family pension through
CMPF, who has not even been made as party respondent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24017 of 2019 dt.10-07-2025
17. In view of the settled position and the discussions
made hereinabove, this court does not find any reason to
interfere in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands
dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take
legal recourse as available under the law, if so advised.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17-07-2025
Transmission Date
