Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 688 (JHR)

Nirmala Kunwar v. State of Jharkhand

2009-05-04

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2009
Order In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondents for payment of following dues on account of petitioner's husband who died in harness on 1.6.2006 in .favour of the petitioner:- i. Pension ii. Leave Encashment iii. Gratuity iv. Group Insurance v. G.P.F. etc. 2. The petitioner further prays for appropriate writ, order or direction to for with consider the representation of the petitioner for appointment of her son Sujit Kumar Tiwary on compassionate ground. 3. Even though the petitioner was appointed in the year 1990 but he was terminated from service on 14.11.1998 which led to filing of Writ Petition No. 4206 of 1999 which was disposed of by a speaking order in favour of the petitioner allowing the writ petition quashing the order of termination. While allowing the writ petition the learned Single Judge referred to and relied upon the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 82 of 1999 the relief portion of which is quoted as under:- "I set-aside the said order in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner stands reinstated to the post of Clerk with back wages. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents to proceed in accordance with law." 4. The aforesaid order was thereafter confirmed in L.PA No. 469/99(R) and the matter thereafter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 139/2001 which also stood dismissed and the petitioner's husband alongwith others found validly appointed in the Department. The petitioner's husband was accordingly reinstated in the service alongwith others and on 12.5.2001 he joined in Rajkiyakrit Mukhdeo Uchh Vidyalaya, Majhion and later transferred to Dumaria. 5. It appears that the petitioner's husband died on 1.6.2006 while working at Rajkiyakrit Goawal Uchh Vidyalay (High School), Dumaria, Garhwa. In the meanwhile, L.P.A. No. 924 of 2000 alongwith connected L.P.A. preferred by the respondent State against the order passed in C.WJ.C. No. 82 of 1999 as relied upon was allowed vide order dated 27.7.2006 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration before the writ court. 6. I am informed that before passing of the final order by the Division Bench, the said petitioner Anil Kumar Tiwary died on 1.6.2006. 6. I am informed that before passing of the final order by the Division Bench, the said petitioner Anil Kumar Tiwary died on 1.6.2006. Upon specific query the learned counsel for the respondents is not able to point out as to whether in the interregnum there was any interim stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In any case the admitted fact remains that pursuant to the order allowing the writ petition of the petitioner's husband passed by the learned Single Judge, he actually joined the service in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge and worked continuously till the date of his death i.e. 1.6.2006. 7. The order of the learned Single Judge was in operation and by virtue of the Judicial order in favour of the petitioner he had commenced his work and was being paid the salary as well and thus, the respondent cannot deny the benefit accrued to the deceased husband of the petitioner for the period he had actually worked in compliance to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In any case on the date of death the L.PA was still pending and no order was passed till that date. 8. The law in this regard is well settled that the judicial order passed by the High Court is operational till it is set aside and/or stayed by the Appellate Court. In the instant case by the time the petitioner's husband had already died the matter was not finally decided in the aforesaid L.PA 9. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed in part and the respondents are accordingly directed to compute the benefits accordingly prior to the order dated 27.7.2006 and to pay the same in accordance with law to the petitioner who is wife of the deceased employee, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.