Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 268 (JHR)

Sukhmet Debi v. State of Jharkhand

2020-02-10

S.N.PATHAK

body2020
ORDER : S.N. Pathak, J. I.A. No. 7733 of 2017 1. Ms. Manju Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the said interlocutory application. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Prayer is allowed. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7733 of 2017 stands dismissed as not pressed. W.P.(S) No. 5375 of 2015 5. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 19.12.2014 contained in Memo No. 3166 passed by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents for payment of retiral dues, including pension etc. 6. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The husband of the petitioner late Vaijnath Singh Kherwar was appointed as work charge employee on being taken in the work charge establishment vide Memo No. 1512 dated 27.08.1986. He remained in the said establishment working as Chowkidar till his death in the year, 2008. As the services of the husband of the petitioner was not regularized, her husband had preferred a writ petition before this Court in the year, 2006 being W.P.(S) No. 4825 of 2006 for regularization of his services as 24 employees were regularized in the year 1991. This Court vide order 18.12.2006 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of para 53 of the reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC) 282], within a period of six months. This Court vide order 18.12.2006 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of para 53 of the reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC) 282], within a period of six months. However, no consideration was shown to the order passed by this Court as no order was passed and subsequently on 17.08.2008, the husband of the petitioner died and as such, petitioner, widow represented before the respondents for payment of family pension in favour of her husband, who was appointed as a work charged employee on being taken in the work charge establishment, but no heed was paid and as such, she constrained to knock the door of this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4193 of 2013, same was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to represent before the respondents and on receipt of the same, the respondents were directed to consider the same in accordance with law and after due verification of the relevant service records of the deceased employee, it was directed to take an informed decision in the matter, within a period of 12 weeks' thereafter. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner represented before the respondents, but the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for getting family pension/retiral dues vide letter No. 3166 dated 19.12.2014. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 7. Ms. Manju Pandey, learned counsel assisted by Mrs. Tejswi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that admittedly late husband of the petitioner was working as work charged employee, which was never disputed by the respondents in the counter-affidavit filed in the earlier writ petitions and it is only when a direction was given to consider the case of the petitioner in view of notification/Circular dated 27th August, 1986 and also in view of Full Bench Judgment rendered by this Court in case of Ram Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 38 , the same is disputed, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 38 , the same is disputed, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that after death of her husband, it is not open for the respondents to decide the claim whether he was work charged employee in the work charged establishment or he was working as a daily-wager. She further submits that issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of N.D.P. Namboodripad vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 502 regarding payment of legal dues/post retiral benefits to the legal heirs. Learned counsel further argues that admittedly, the petitioner is entitled for family pension as well as retiral benefits and other consequential benefits and as such, a direction be given to the respondents for payment of the aforesaid benefits after quashing the impugned order. 8. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as the husband of the petitioner never worked continuously for a period of 5 years, in fact he was absent for a long period of time and thereafter again joined and worked as a daily wage employee and as such, he is not covered by the said Resolution of the State Govt. regarding regularization of the employee and as such, petitioner is not entitled for any benefit. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The respondents have misconstrued the legal aspect as decided by this Court in Full Bench in case of Ram Prasad Singh (supra). In the earlier writ petition, filed by the petitioner though the case was contested by the respondents, but it was never argued that the husband of the petitioner worked as a daily wager as such, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents and averments made in the counter-affidavit was not acceptable to this Court as the Notification dated 27.08.1986 was never considered and as such, a direction was given to reconsider the said Notification, within stipulated period taking into account the order of this Court passed by Full Bench. Never consideration was shown to the order passed by this Court and in the instant writ petition, a counter-affidavit has been filed, making out a case that petitioner's husband was working as daily-wager, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and impugned order is not well founded as respondents have misconstrued the law as laid down by the Full Bench in case of Ram Prasad Singh (supra) and proper facts have not been appreciated, which has been settled in the earlier writ petition, filed by the petitioner i.e. W.P.(S) No. 4193/2013. As the petitioner is legal heir, at this stage, the question of legality and propriety of the late husband, working as a work charge employee cannot be questioned or disputed. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, impugned order dated 19.12.2014 is liable to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. As a result of quashment, the respondents are directed to pay the family pension and other benefits for which the petitioner is found entitled, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Let it is made clear that if the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry an interest of 10% from the date of death of petitioner's husband. 11. Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed.