Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 381 (JHR)

Mala Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-06

ANANDA SEN

body2019
JUDGMENT : This case has been listed today under the heading for orders as the notices were sent to Respondent no. 5, which was returned un served. But, considering the nature of the dispute, I feel that no further notice needs to be issued to respondent no. 5. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the letter bearing No. 2108 dated 24.08.2016, passed by Respondent no. 3 Secretary In-charge, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, by which it has been decided that respondent no. 5 Bimla Devi being the wife of the deceased Ram Babu Ram is entitled to get all the retiral benefits. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner claims to be the wife of deceased Ram Babu Ram, who was an employee of Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha and was working a Sweeper. He superannuated in October, 2012 and thereafter, died on 16.01.2013. 4. This petitioner, claiming to be the wife of the deceased, had approached this Court earlier by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.S. No. 1819 of 2014, for payment of the post retiral benefits as her representation failed to evoke any response. The said writ application was disposed of on 25.11.2014, directing the Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha to decide the claim of the petitioner. It was also ordered that the genuine and admissible dues of death cum retiral benefits and any other service dues should be released either in favour of this petitioner or any other rightful claimants after due identification. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the exercise was taken up by the Secretary to decide as to who is the rightful claimant. The Secretary came to the conclusion that it is Bimla Devi (Respondent no. 5 herein), who is the rightful claimant and not this petitioner. This order contained in letter no. 2108 dated 24.08.2016, has been impugned by the petitioner in this writ application. 6. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the first wife and thus she is entitled to get all the death-cum-retiral benefits. 7. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased. 6. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the first wife and thus she is entitled to get all the death-cum-retiral benefits. 7. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased. He further submits that Vidhan Sabha is governed by the document, which the deceased had filled up and the deceased has shown Bimla Devi as his wife in all the service documents. He further submits that now the petitioner wants to challenge the relationship of Bimla Devi and the deceased, which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. 8. After going through the records, I find that the Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha after going through the documents, has held that in all the service records of late Ram Babu Ram it is Bimla Devi, who has been shown as wife of the deceased. He has also come to the conclusion that even the pension papers were filled up showing Bimla Devi as the wife of the deceased. Thus, Bimla Devi is entitled to get the death-cum-retiral benefits. 9. I find that the name of Bimla Devi is reflected in all the service records of the deceased as his wife. This petitioner is claiming herself to be the first wife of the deceased, but there is no document on records to suggest that this petitioner is the wife of the deceased. The petitioner relied upon some documents, i.e. the relationship certificate issued by the Circle Officer, but that too is of the year 2016. On query, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased had entered, in any of his service record, the name of this petitioner as his wife. 10. Thus, the main issue in this writ application is as to who is the legally married wife of the deceased. This question of fact needs oral and documentary evidence for decision. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide this question, which involves highly disputed question of fact. Further, the name of respondent no. Thus, the main issue in this writ application is as to who is the legally married wife of the deceased. This question of fact needs oral and documentary evidence for decision. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide this question, which involves highly disputed question of fact. Further, the name of respondent no. 5 Bimla Devi appears in all the service records as the wife of the deceased Ram Babu Ram, thus primafacie, the respondents are correct in coming to the conclusion that the death-cum-retiral benefits are to be given to Bimla Devi. 11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.