Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 24 (JHR)

Shanti Devi v. Central Coalfield Ltd.

2017-01-04

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents for payment of family pension with statutory interest with effect from 04.09.2002. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of the Central Coalfields Limited, working as Sweeper in the Kuju colliery in the district of Hazaribagh now comes under the Ramgarh district. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 04.09.2002 as per the Death certificate vide Annexure-1. It has been submitted in the writ application that the first wife of the husband of the petitioner died pre-deceased on 30.08.1994 as per the Death certificate vide Annexure-2. After the death of the first wife, the husband married with the petitioner according to the Hindu tradition in the year 1995. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the respondent have provided employment on compassionate ground to the step son, namely, Gobra Dom and other retiral benefits but have not paid the family pension to the petitioner as per Section 12 (2) of the CMPS, 1998. Since the husband of the petitioner was a member of the CMFPS, 1971, two per cent wages was deducted from the wages of the deceased employee. It has been submitted that the relationship certificate dated 17.12.2002 vide Annexure-4 has been issued by the State authority i.e. B.D.O., Mandu, Block-Hazaribagh indicating the petitioner being the wife of the deceased-employee. After the death of the deceased husband, the petitioner filed applications, as evident from Annexure-5 series. Since no action has been taken by the respondents for payment of family pension, the petitioner having no other alternative, has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-CCL-authorities controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been inter alia, submitted in the counter affidavit that Bigal Dom PIS No. 11221744 was employed as a Sweeper Category II in Kuju colliery and died on 04.07.2002. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-CCL-authorities controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been inter alia, submitted in the counter affidavit that Bigal Dom PIS No. 11221744 was employed as a Sweeper Category II in Kuju colliery and died on 04.07.2002. As per the records available in the company, the name of the wife of the deceased employee was recorded as Shanti Devi, who died on 30.08.1999 and thereafter, no new name of any 2nd wife as has been claimed by the petitioner was included in the service record till the date of death of the deceased-employee. It has further been stated that the petitioner claims herself to be the second wife of the deceased employee, but, in the service record, the deceased never disclosed that he has re-married another lady and never included her name either in the list of dependants or as a nominee for family pension, therefore, the writ petition is wholly misconceived. It has further been stated that other death-cum-retiral benefits have been paid to the dependants of the deceased-employee as per the list available in the Company as evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has further been stated that the petitioner who claims herself to be the second wife of the deceased employee, but such statement was not substantiated by any record. 4. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 7. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit that on verification of the available records of the office, it has been found that late Bigal Dom during his lifetime, nominated Smt. Shanti Devi, who pre-deceased the member as per Annexure-A and payment of provident fund of late Bigal Dom was made to the surviving sons and daughters as per the recommendations of the Management. It has further been stated that the pension claim in respect of the deceased-member has not been submitted to the office of the respondent no. 7 and letter dated 21.10.2013 for early submission of the claim and verification/genuinity of the claimant as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 5. Having heard Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the Respondent no. 5. Having heard Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the Respondent no. 7-CMPF and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons : - (i) Admittedly, in the instant writ application, the petitioner claims to be the second wife of the deceased-employee but neither her name has been recorded as a nominee nor the deceased-employee ever disclosed that he has re-married the present petitioner in the absence of any documentary evidence, the respondents are justified in not sanctioning the family pension in favour of the petitioner. (ii) The letter dated 23.10.2013 of the respondents authorities (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 7) addressed to the CCL-authorities indicates that the CCL-authorities were requested to verify and enquire and forward the pension claim of the petitioner, who claims to be the second wife of the deceased but the claim of the petitioner appears to be not supported by any foundational facts, therefore, in the absence of any relevant documentary evidences, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of family pension. 6. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition does not warrant any interference by this Court due to lack of foundational facts. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.