Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 850 (JHR)

Chandar Devi v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2020-09-07

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 11/15.06.2012 (Anneuxre-6), whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of monetary compensation has been rejected and also for a direction upon the respondents to pay the same along with its arrears and interest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent-authority is non-est in the eye of law and has been passed just to defeat justice. He further submits that in the impugned order itself it is mentioned that an affidavit on behalf of the other lady-Jagrani Devi, who claims herself to be the first wife of the deceased employee, has submitted that though earlier she had applied for payment of retiral benefits against the death of her husband (deceased employee), which may please deemed to be null & void. By referring this sentence, learned counsel submits that in view of the said affidavit the respondent-authority could not have denied the monetary compensation to be paid to the present petitioner who is admittedly wife of the deceased employee. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner was referred to the native place of the deceased employee for verification of genuinity of the claimant and thereafter, the Block Development Officer, Singouli, East Champaran vide its letter dated 09.04.2003 has informed that the wife of the deceased employee is Smt. Jagrani Devi, who is alive and presently residing in her native place at Sripur, Chintaman, Singouli, East Champaran and it is also stated that the present petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee. It has further been mentioned that an affidavit purported to be signed by Smt. Jagrani Devi was submitted way back on 05.09.2003, wherein purportedly she has declared that her earlier application for payment of retiral benefit against the death of her husband may be treated as null & void as all the difference between the petitioner-Chandra Devi with her husband has been sorted out. 5. Learned counsel for the BCCL submits that since the genuinity of the claim is doubtful and only on the basis of affidavit that the first wife waives her claims, it is very difficult to pay the entire monetary compensation to the present petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the BCCL submits that since the genuinity of the claim is doubtful and only on the basis of affidavit that the first wife waives her claims, it is very difficult to pay the entire monetary compensation to the present petitioner. He further submits that the instant issue is basically a pure question of fact; as such the same should be decided by an appropriate Court. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Sanjay Kumar Jha Vs. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary & Ors reported in (2019) 2 SCC 499 and also the judgment passed in the case of Roshina T. Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 329 . Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the instant writ application may be rejected, with a direction to the present petitioner to approach appropriate forum. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the counter-affidavit as well as the impugned order, it appears that the present petitioner applied for employment & monetary benefits arising out of death of the deceased employee-late Munshi Prasad, Ex. Night Guard, Simlabahal Colliery, who died on 02.06.2002. Her claim for provision of employment was referred to the native place of the deceased employee for verification of the genuinity of the claimant. Pursuant to the said query of the Coal-Company, the Block Development Officer, Singouli, East Champaran vide its letter dated 09.04.2003 has informed that the wife of the deceased employee is Smt. Jagrani Devi and she is alive and presently residing at her native village and the present petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee. From the impugned order it further transpires that an affidavit on behalf of Smt. Jagrani Devi has been submitted which is dated 05.09.2003 under which she has deposed that she had earlier applied for payment of retiral benefits against the death of her husband and same may be declared null & void. 7. In my considered opinion deciding any claim on the basis of an affidavit is not appropriate, rather for any disputed question of fact the matter should be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction. 7. In my considered opinion deciding any claim on the basis of an affidavit is not appropriate, rather for any disputed question of fact the matter should be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Jha (Supra) it has been categorically held that even in cases where the High Court finds an apparent factual error which goes to the root of the decision, the appropriate course of action would be to give the opportunity to the authority concerned to rectify the error. It is only in the rarest of cases, where the factual error is so obvious that it is rectifiable by the Court itself that the Court might to prevent delay and consequential denial and/or miscarriage of justice, rectify the error. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has further held in paragraph 18 is as under:- “18. It is not for the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to embark upon a comparative assessment of the suitability of different candidates for appointment of a dealer of a retail outlet. The High Court, in our view, should not have decided the factual question of whether the land of respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was in Giriyama in view of the reports of the Additional Collector, District Magistrate and Circle Officer concerned to the effect that the land of respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was in Falka and not within Giriyama. The High Court patently erred is brushing aside the reports of the Revenue Authorities and arriving at a different finding.” 8. In yet another judgment reported in Roshina T. (supra), it has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has further held in paragraph 13 and 14 are as under:- “13. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. 14. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. 14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal.)” 9. In view of the aforesaid judgments as well as the settled proposition of law that a disputed question of fact should be agitated before an appropriate forum i.e. the Civil Court in the instant case. Though the affidavit is on record, which is purported to have been filed by the so-called first wife that she has waived her claim, however, to act upon such affidavit is very dangerous. 10. In this view of the matter, I refrain myself from interfering with the impugned order as contained in letter dated 11/15.06.2012 (Anneuxre-6). However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction and file a succession suit for declaration. It is observed that if any such succession suit is filed before a Court of competent jurisdiction, the said Court shall dispose of the matter as early as possible since this is a case of monetary compensation to a widow. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application is disposed of.