Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2509 (JHR)

Lagni Turi v. State of Jharkhand

2018-11-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, State and the Accountant General, Jharkhand. 2. Petitioner Lagni Turi and Jalia Paharin claim to be widow of late employee Gopi Chand Mirdha and Sundra Paharia who died on 27.03.2007 and 10.04.2016 respectively after their retirement on 30.04.2004 from the post of Choukidar under Litipara Circle. Both these petitioners contended that their husband had worked for 13/14 years as Choukidar and have not been paid their post retirement dues during their life time. Petitioner Dasrath Kunai is the son of late employee Manik Kunai who died on 09.03.2013 after his retirement on 30.06.2003 having served for 13 years as a Choukidar in Pakur. All these petitioners have claimed death cum retirement dues in lieu of the deceased employee claiming themselves to be the widow/ son/ legal heirs. Petitioner Lagni Turi has enclosed a document related to Provident Fund deposit of the deceased employee as per which contribution were deducted from 01.01.1990 from his salary(Annexure-1). Petitioner Jalia Paharin has enclosed a document dated 02.08.2005 issued by the Circle Officer, Litipara, Pakur (Annexure-1/1) as per which the employee retired on 30.04.2004 while working as Choukidar. Petitioner Dashrath Kunai has also enclosed a document (Annexure-1/1) issued by the Circle Officer, Pakur as per which employee superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years from the post of Choukidar on 30.06.2003. Death certificates of the deceased employees are also enclosed to the writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that individual employee pursued their claim of post retirement benefits during their life time which remained unpaid. After their death such claim is being prosecuted by the petitioners who are their legal heirs. They have also represented before the respondent authorities. Therefore the writ petitions may be disposed with suitable direction upon the concerned respondents to determine the individual claim of these petitioners in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the writ petitions have been taken up for the first time and as such, specific instructions on the individual claim of the petitioners have not yet been furnished. They also point out that whether employees were confirmed or permanent employees of the State and their services were pensionable or not is also not evident from the enclosed annexures. It is also not clear as to why employees themselves did not pursue their claim till their death. They also point out that whether employees were confirmed or permanent employees of the State and their services were pensionable or not is also not evident from the enclosed annexures. It is also not clear as to why employees themselves did not pursue their claim till their death. The locus of individual petitioners and their eligibility to claim such death cum retirement benefits is also an issue to be examined. However, if suitable direction is issued, the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, Respondent no.4 would take an informed decision in the matter after due scrutiny of the relevant record of the deceased employees, locus and eligibility of these petitioners as their legal heirs and necessary formalities, if any, as required to be fulfilled on the part of these petitioners for processing such claim. 5. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the relevant material facts borne on record and taken note above. The factual matrix noted above leave certain questions unanswered such as whether the services of the person concerned / deceased employees were pensionable or permanent and they were in substantive employment of the State; whether the petitioners have a locus and are the only legal heirs to stake such claim of death cum retirement benefits etc. These issues at the first instances can be examined and determined by the competent authority instead the same being adjudicated by the Court at this stage. 6. In such circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with a liberty to the individual petitioners to approach the competent authority/respondent no.4, Deputy Commissioner, Pakur through the respondent Circle Officer, Litipara/Pakur-respondent no.6 with proper representation(s) duly supported with all the necessary facts and documents for redressal of their grievances within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Pakur-Respondent no.4 on receipt of such representation(s) would examine the individual claim and the issues germane for its determination, as also noted above, after scrutiny of the relevant records of the deceased employees and take a decision within a period of 12 weeks thereafter in accordance with law. 7. Needless to say, if the claim is found genuine on such determination, admissible dues, if any, be released in favour of the legal heirs / petitioners within a reasonable time, thereafter with statutory interest, if any. 7. Needless to say, if the claim is found genuine on such determination, admissible dues, if any, be released in favour of the legal heirs / petitioners within a reasonable time, thereafter with statutory interest, if any. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the individual claims. Petition disposed of.