Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 527 (JHR)

Ram Kumar Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-23

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order The present appeal is filed against the order dated 04.08.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7350 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant declining to quash the order dated 20.11.2006 whereby the 3rd respondent-District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ranchi directed to make payment of half of the retiral benefits to the 5th respondent Srimati Saroj Devi who is the sister of the appellant. 2. Late Ram Naryan Dubey who was working as Panchayat Sevak in the Panchayat Office, Ranchi retired on 31.03.1997 and he died on 22.11.2005 leaving behind the son (appellant) and the married daughter respondent no. 5 namely, Srimati Saroj Devi. After the death of his father, the appellant made several representations to the concerned respondent to make payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits payable to the Late Ram Narayan Dubey. Earlier, the 5th respondent filed W.P. (S) No. 4705 of 2006 seeking direction upon the respondents for payment of half of the retiral dues of Ram Narayan Dubey. In the earlier writ petition, the Court has directed to 3rd respondent to look into the grievances of the petitioner and take a decision within a period of six weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order. It was further directed that if the respondent no.5 is found entitled to get monetary 2benefit the same must be paid within a period of six weeks thereafter and if the benefit found payable to the 5th respondent was not paid to her, she will be entitled to get interest @ 10% over and above any statutory interest payable on delayed payment of such dues. 3. In compliance of the direction of the Court in W.P.(S) No. 4705 of 2006, the 3rd respondent conducted an inquiry and vide order dated 20.11.2006, observed that the 5th respondent is entitled to get the retiral benefits and directed for the payment of the half of the amount to the appellant and the half to the 5th respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2006, the appellant filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7350 of 2006 and sought for quashing the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the 3rd respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2006, the appellant filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7350 of 2006 and sought for quashing the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the 3rd respondent. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the impugned order dividing the pension and the gratuity in equal shares between the appellant and the 5th respondent is fully in accordance with law and that the said order does not suffer from any error of law warranting interference. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ramawatar Sharma has submitted that as per the 3 (a) of Appendix 5 of the Bihar Pension Rules adopted by the State of Jharkhand mandates that, in the absence of any nomination, death cum gratuity under the scheme will be allowed to the surviving widow in the case of a male government servant and if there is no surviving widow/husband it will be paid in equal shares to (i) sons (ii) unmarried daughter. (b) If there is no surviving member of the family as mentioned above, the death gratuity may be paid to all such (i) widowed daughters and (ii) brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried or widowed sisters. The learned counsel submitted that as per the Bihar Pension Rules adopted by3the State of Jharkhand, the married daughter is not entitled to get retiral benefits and while so the learned Single Judge was not right in saying that the 5th respondent is entitled to half share of the death cum retiral benefits. The learned counsel further submitted that the Writ Court was not right in saying that the pension and the gratuity is a coparcenary property and the learned counsel submitted that the death cum retiral benefit is not a coparcenary property to enable the daughter to get share and while so, succession law is not applicable to the death cum retiral benefits and also the pension and they will be covered only by the Jharkhand Pension Rules and not by the Central enactment. 6. We have heard the learned counsel Mr. Ramawatar Sharma appearing for the appellant, Mr. Manohar Ram Tiwary appearing for the 5th respondent and Mr. S. Srivastava appearing for the 6th respondent. 7. 6. We have heard the learned counsel Mr. Ramawatar Sharma appearing for the appellant, Mr. Manohar Ram Tiwary appearing for the 5th respondent and Mr. S. Srivastava appearing for the 6th respondent. 7. The amount payable to late Ram Narayan Dubey – ExPanchayat Sevak and now claimed by the appellant is the death cum retiral benefits which is a lumpsum amount payable. The contention of the appellant that the death cum retiral benefits will be governed by the Bihar Pension Rules as adopted by the State of Jharkhand. The Jharkhand Pension Rules governs only the payment of family pension for the State government employees. In the present case the monetary benefits claimed by the appellant is the death cum retiral benefits which is a lumpsum for payment of death cum retiral benefits, which is the estate of the deceased, for distribution of the same normal rule of succession will apply. 8. The death cum retiral benefits is inclusive of the gratuity and other lumpsum amount payable to the government employee payable by the State government to the government employee. Considering the nature of the monetary benefits which constitute the death cum retiral benefit, we are of the view that the amount will be disbursed as per the normal rule of succession. The 5th respondent even though a married daughter she is not excluded 4from the succession of the Death cum retiral benefits. Insofar as the family pension is concerned, it is governed under the Bihar Pension Rules adopted by the State of Jharkhand. After conducting inquiry, the 3rd respondent rightly held that the 5th respondent will be entitled to share of the retiral benefits payable to the late Ram Narayan Dubey and the said order does not suffers from any error of law. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition and we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge warranting interference. 9. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Respondent no. 3 is directed to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge within a period of 8 weeks.