Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 708 (JHR)

Fulmony Bauri v. State of Jharkhand

2020-07-06

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred for a direction upon the respondent-State to pay death-cum-retiral dues including provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment etc. with interest and also to start family pension forthwith in favor of the petitioner on account of death of her husband-late Patal Bauri. The petitioner has also prayed for compassionate appointment. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Patal Bauri who died in harness on 06.01.2001 while working as “Chowkidar” for the village-Kalipathar in the district of Jamtara. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court by filing a writ application being W.P.(S) No.2325 of 2005 for same relief, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.05.2005 with a direction to the respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara to look into the matter and pay the entire retiral benefit to the petitioner. Subsequently, a review application was filed by respondent no.5-Smt. Joba Bauri, claiming herself to be wife of the deceased employee-Patal Bauri, which was registered as Civil Review No.60 of 2008. The said review application was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2009 and the operative portion of the order is quoted herein below:- “Since there is a dispute between the two ladies, namely Fulmony Bauri and Joba Bauri with regard to their status as a legally married wife, this Court is not supposed to decide the said dispute. In view thereof, the parties are at liberty to get their status declared by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. This review petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that any action taken by the respondents-State in pursuant to the order dated 18.05.2005 passed in W.P.S No.2325 of 2005 against the review petitioner including her removal from service shall be restored.” Thereafter, the petitioner filed a title suit in the year 2011 being Title Suit No.34 of 2011, in which respondent no.5 was party defendant. The said suit was allowed in favor of this petitioner vide order dated 27.08.2013 and decree dated 21.11.2013, however, it was an ex-parte order. From the record, it also appears that after the said decree, a representation was filed by the petitioner and since the payment was not made, she again preferred the present writ application. 4. The said suit was allowed in favor of this petitioner vide order dated 27.08.2013 and decree dated 21.11.2013, however, it was an ex-parte order. From the record, it also appears that after the said decree, a representation was filed by the petitioner and since the payment was not made, she again preferred the present writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the declaration by the civil court that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee-late Patal Bauri, she has not been paid any amount till date. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterated its stands made in the counter affidavit and submits that it was ex-parte decree but admittedly, the decree is in favor of the petitioner. He further submits that a letter has already been issued to the respondent no.2 to act upon the application of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 vehemently contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any amount as she is not the actual wife of the deceased employee-Patal Bauri. On query from the Court, learned counsel fairly admits that as per his instruction the said ex-parte decree has never been challenged by the respondent no.5. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that though the order and decree passed by the Civil Court in the Title Suit filed by the petitioner was an ex-parte decree, but the respondent no.5 was a party defendant in the said title suit. Further, there in nothing on record to suggest that the said order and decree has been challenged by the respondent no.5. In this view of the matter, I hereby direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with copy of order and decree passed by the civil court before the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. If any such representation is filed, the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara is directed to look into the matter keeping in mind the decree passed by the civil court declaring the petitioner as legally wedded wife of deceased employee-late Patal Bauri and settle the monetary claim of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. However, so far as the issue of compassionate appointment is concerned, this court is not giving any finding and the same shall be decided in accordance with law, rules, regulations, circular and order of the Government. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of.