Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 69 (JHR)

Monika Mani v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board

2018-01-09

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2018
ORDER Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-J.S.E.B. 2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing/setting aside the decision dated 25.06.2008 as passed by the respondent No.2 whereby and where under he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of retirement benefits/family pension on the ground that the service of her husband was not confirmed at the time of death and for other benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though several prayers have been made in the writ application, some of the reliefs prayed for, has already been given to the petitioner by the respondent. Hence, he only confines his prayer for grant of family pension to the petitioner. 4. Rule 186 (2) of the Pension Rules reads as under:- (2) A family pension will ordinarily be tenable- (i) in the case of a widow or mother until death or re-marriage whichever occurs earlier; 5. Vide order dated 07.12.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to file supplementary affidavit as to whether petitioner has remarried after the death of her husband. 6. The petitioner has not filed any supplementary affidavit stating whether she has re-married after the death of her husband. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not inclined to reveal to this Court as to whether the petitioner has re-married or not and submits that orders be passed by this court on the materials available in the record. 7. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 20 of the case of Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn.), (2010) 4 SCC 728 has held as under :- " It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person." 8. In view of this approach of the petitioner and the settled principle of law as mentioned above, since the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and is suppressing the fact as to whether she has re-married after the death of her husband without any plausible reason even though the said information is relevant for adjudication of the matter, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be granted the reliefs prayed for by her. 9. Accordingly, this writ application of the petitioner stands dismissed.