Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 815 (JHR)

Maharangi Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the entire benefits such as the amount of gratuity, government provident fund etc; and also the amount of family pension to the petitioner whose husband Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma died in harness on 01.12.2006 i.e. in course of his employment while he was posted in State Upgraded New Selected School, Dhori under Bermo subdivision in the District of Bokaro as Grade-IV employee (Peon). (ii) For issuance of an appropriate Writ/order/direction and/ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint Ranjit Kumar, the son of the petitioner on compassionate ground because of the death of his father in harness. (iii) For issuance of such other writ/order/direction for which the petitioner is legally entitled under the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is legally wedded wife of one Late Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma who was an employee of Education Department and while he was posted as peon, a (Class-IV) employee in the State Upgraded New Selected School, Dhori, Bokaro, he died in harness on 01.12.2006. It has been stated in the writ petition that the said Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma had solemnized four marriage within his life time however, out of them only the petitioner and one Sunita Devi (4th wife) are alive. Since retiral benefits of the petitioner were not paid to the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State (respondent nos. 3 & 4) taking a stand that since Sunita Devi(4th wife of the said Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma) has filed application dated 11.2.2009 & 10.08.2011, and as petitioner has failed to produce Succession Certificate, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. 3 & 4) taking a stand that since Sunita Devi(4th wife of the said Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma) has filed application dated 11.2.2009 & 10.08.2011, and as petitioner has failed to produce Succession Certificate, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a plea that since this has not been disputed that the petitioner is the first legally wedded wife of the said Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma, in so far as the grant of retiral benefits are concerned, the petitioner is the only claimant and respondent-State should have granted the retiral benefits to the petitioner. He has further submitted that in so far as the claim of the other wives and children are concerned that would be confined only to the assets of the said Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that in view of the disputed facts in this case, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. 7. A perusal of documents on record indicates that in support of her claim, the petitioner has filed certificate from the Circle Officer, Sisai, whereunder the name of the three wives of said Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma has been mentioned. The name of the petitioner also appears at serial no. 1. However, it is a matter of record that one Sunita Devi claiming herself the wife of said Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma, has also filed application before the authorities and it is not the case of petitioner that Late Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma has submitted statutory Forms whereunder the petitioner has been nominated by late Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma as the beneficiary. The claim of the petitioner rests on the certificate dated 09.02.2007(Annexure-2) however, the admitted fact is that the late Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma had solemnized 4 marriages and one Sunita Devi claims herself to be the 4th wife and this has been admitted by the petitioner in the present proceeding that she is also alive. The claim of the petitioner rests on the certificate dated 09.02.2007(Annexure-2) however, the admitted fact is that the late Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma had solemnized 4 marriages and one Sunita Devi claims herself to be the 4th wife and this has been admitted by the petitioner in the present proceeding that she is also alive. She has raised a dispute and filed application before the authorities and therefore, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated before this Court however, the petitioner is at liberty to file a proper suit before the Civil Court seeking a proper declaration in this behalf. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition disposed of.