Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1033 (JHR)

Meeru Marandi v. Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

2015-09-02

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER : In this application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of death-cum-retiral dues to the petitioner along with interest thereon. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, namely, Jai prakash Kumar Besera was posted as Fitter in the Raj Mahal Group of Mines of M/s. Eastern Coalfield Ltd. (ECL), Lalmatia, District Godda. During service period, Jai Prakash Kumar Besera died on 31.5.2006 and the petitioner claiming herself to be the legally married wife of the deceased employee, filed an application for making payment of gratuity before the Personnel Manager on 25.7.2006. The had petitioner also preferred a representation on 25.9.2006 with respect to the life cover. The Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF), Deoghar issued a cheque bearing No. Cheque No. 931565 dated 6.7.2007 in the name of the petitioner with respect to the provident fund dues of the deceased employee, but the said cheque was not handed over to the petitioner to which she filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Godda, and where inspite of her repeated attempts the Death-cum-Retiral dues of Jai Prakash Kumar Besera was not paid to the petitioner, she has preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. No one appears for the private respondent No. 6. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was married with Jai Prakash Kumar Besera and being the legally married wife, the petitioner is the sole claimant to the Death-cum-Retiral benefits accruing on account of the death of her deceased husband. It has been submitted that the petitioner has preferred an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Godda, but subsequently the same was withdrawn and the petitioner had thereafter preferred the present writ petition. It has also been submitted that the petitioner preferred an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance in T.R. No. 30 of 2006 in which an order was passed on 17.3.2006 directing her husband to make payment of maintenance @ Rs. 800/-per month. It has also been submitted that the petitioner preferred an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance in T.R. No. 30 of 2006 in which an order was passed on 17.3.2006 directing her husband to make payment of maintenance @ Rs. 800/-per month. Learned counsel further adds that the name of the petitioner was included in the nomination form and even though the status of the petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee, but the same has been disputed by the respondent M/s. ECL and her name continues to figure as a nominee and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefits. 5. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 4 on the other hand has submitted that in the year 1997 itself the deceased employee had divorced the petitioner and had also filed an application before the concerned authority that the name of the petitioner be deleted from the service records as the nominee of the deceased employee and instead the name of respondent No. 6 being the mother of the deceased employee be inserted. It had been submitted that so far as the provident fund is concerned the cheque was issued by the respondent, but since there was an apparent dispute with respect to the eligibility of the claimant, the cheque could not handed over. It has therefore been submitted that admittedly when the petitioner was divorced by the deceased employee in the year 1997 itself, no legal right subsists to the petitioner for claiming Death cum Retiral benefits of the deceased employee. 6. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has merely restricted his argument to the effect that the provident fund amount was handed over to the respondent M/s. ECL by way of a cheque. 7. The document which is appended to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 4 clearly depicts that the deceased employee Jai Prakash Kumar Besera had divorced the petitioner in the year 1997 itself and the necessary documents with respect to the said divorce as well as the affidavit was duly presented before the authority. 7. The document which is appended to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 4 clearly depicts that the deceased employee Jai Prakash Kumar Besera had divorced the petitioner in the year 1997 itself and the necessary documents with respect to the said divorce as well as the affidavit was duly presented before the authority. The documents go to show that apart from the factum of divorce between the deceased employee and the petitioner, application for insertion of name of the Respondent No. 6 as a nominee of the deceased employee in place of the petitioner was also submitted. These documents have not been disputed by the petitioner, but in the reply to the counter affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 certain averments in opposition have been made and that too in a slipshod manner. In such circumstances it can therefore be concluded that the petitioner has no legal right to claim the Death-cum-Retiral benefits of late Jai Prakash Kumar Besera. So far as the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same was passed ex parte and such order in the given facts and circumstances would not strengthen the claim of the petitioner. 8. Consequent to what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and hence the same is hereby dismissed.