Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1482 (JHR)

Shila Kapardar v. State of Jharkhand

2008-12-18

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2008
Order This writ petition has been preferred for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus and/or in the like nature; or an appropriate Writ/Rule/Order commanding upon the respondents concerned to make payment of; (i) Service benefits of the petitioner's deceased husband, including Provident Fund, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, Group Insurance; and (ii) Family pension getting the same fixed along with arrears; and (iii) Interest on the entire arrears since the same have not been paid In time and the petitioner has to knock the door of Law for payment of the same after her husband died serving a long 29 years; taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner's husband served the Government through the Department of Home Affairs for long 29 years, and he died in harness when he was posted as a Police Inspector at Latehar, Jharkhand, and till date the service benefits of the deceased employee has not been paid to the widow petitioner. 2. It appears that this Hon'ble Court on 1.12.2005 had specifically directed as under:- "In the facts of the case I direct the respondents to release the entire death-cum-retiral benefits Including GPF, gratuity amount etc. with family pension together with statutory interest to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 3. The respondents filed C.M.P. No. 8 of 2006 for modification of the order dated 1.12.2005 and the main ground was that a Will was made just before the death of the deceased husband of the petitioner in which he had expressed, that after his death all the benefits received from the Government will go to the two sons of the petitioner's husband. The two sons were minors and the Probate Case No. 160 of 2004 was pending before the Judicial Commissioner. I am informed that the same has been dismissed on technical ground vide order dated 10.3.2005. 4. This court vide its order dated 3.4.2006 had recalled the order dated 1.12.2005 in C.M.P. No.8 of 2006 and had indicated that the matter will be heard on merits. 5. I am informed that the same has been dismissed on technical ground vide order dated 10.3.2005. 4. This court vide its order dated 3.4.2006 had recalled the order dated 1.12.2005 in C.M.P. No.8 of 2006 and had indicated that the matter will be heard on merits. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and the pleadings, it appears that upon enquiry also it was confirmed that the petitioner herein was the legally wedded wife of the deceased husband .and there is no dispute that at that point of time there were two minor sons and no orders of divorce was issued. Thus, it will be in the interest of justice that the respondents pay the entire retiral dues in equal share to the petitioner and the two minor sons. The amount to be deposited in the name of minor sons should become operational when they attain majority. 6. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case and also to protect the interest of the minors the respondents are accordingly directed to pay the entire retiral dues/service benefits in equal proportion in favour of the petitioner and the minor sons and if they have attained majority the same can be paid directly to them on their claim. 7. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.