High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4341/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner in the both the wri t petition. Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of the Union Bank of Indi a (respondents No. 1 & 2) and Mr. D. A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 who are parents of one Tajul Islam.
Decision
The petitioner was married to one Tajul Islam who was Assistant Branch M anager in Union Bank of India at Shillong Branch. The said Tajul Islam died on 2 3.08.2008 without leaving any issue. The present petitioner filed an application before the respondent authorities on 08.09.2008, immediately after death of the deceased, praying for family pension, death-cum-retirement benefit, insurance a mount and also for her appointment on compassionate ground. The authority allege dly did not take any action for which the petitioner approached this Court earli er vide WP(C) No. 991 of 2009 and this Court issued a direction on 21.12.2010 di recting the bank to consider and depose of the application of the petitioner sub sequently filed on 16.10.2008 in terms of the scheme formulated by the bank with in a period of 2 months. Upon receipt of the said representation, the respondent No.1 arrived at a decision that since husband of the writ petitioner was above 30 years of age at the time of death, the writ petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment, however, she was entitled to paymen t of Rs. 8, 00, 000/- only as ex-gratia. According to the petitioner, she was di rected to appear before the authority and once she appeared, she was apprised ab out the decision of the Bank to disburse the aforesaid amount to her. She was fu rther apprised that the deceased had some outstanding loan to the bank, like Hou sing loan and Car loan and the same amount came to about 7, 00, 000/- and the sa me amount would be deducted from Rs.8, 00, 000/-. It is further alleged in the w rit petition that the petitioner’s husband have other entitlements, like, gratui ty, provident fund and other death benefits which will be paid to the deceased’s parents and the respondent bank refused to make deduction from those entitlemen ts. The writ petitioner/ wife found that once the respondents make deduction as stated she would get Rs.1,00,000/- only. Faced with such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court for the second time. By these two writ petitions the petitioner has prayed that the sum of Rs . 8,00,000/- as well as death-cum-retirement benefit, provident fund and other a mount may be disbursed to her without giving any share to the parent of the dece ased who are respondents No. 3 & 4 in the writ petitions. The said respondent No .3 & 4 filed affidavit-in-opposition and they have made a claim that they are al so entitled to proportionate share payable on the death of their son Tajul Islam . It appears that this Court wanted the parties to settle the matter in the High Court Mediation Center and that is why the parties were directed to appear befo re the High Court Mediation Centre on 04.12.2012. Parties appeared on the said d ate in the High Court Mediation Centre but unfortunately no settlement could be arrived at. The High Court Mediation Centre referred back the writ petitions to this Court again to decide on merit. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 & 4 submits that in the meantime respondents No. 3 & 4 have filed a civil suit be ing Title Suit No. 268 of 2011 before the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in regard to claim of the death-cum-retirement benefits arising from the death of Tajul Islam, in respect of which the present writ petitions have been preferr ed by his widow. The parties are heard on their respective cases. While it is the case of the writ petitioner that ex-gratia payment can be made to wife of the deceased only the entitlement in regard to other retirement benefits like GPF, Insurance Gratuity may be subject to proportionate disbursement among the heirs of the dec eased. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 & 4 on the other hand joine d issue to the said claim and asserted that properties, be it movable or irremov able left by the deceased is liable to be shared proportionately in accordance w ith law and in that event the parents of the deceased have also their legitimate share on it. The learned Counsel further submits that once a civil Suit has bee n filed seeking declaration from the Trial Court in regard to entitlement of the parties, there is no point in keeping the writ petition pending. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, it appears that while the respective claims of the parties have already been placed before the competent Civil Court, it is better that their claims are adjudicated by the Civil Court in accordant with law. If a decision is given in this writ petition the same may be contradictory. Apart from that the possibility of contradiction decisions also may not be ruled out. It is needless to say that the writ petiti on is only a summery procedure and once contentions are raised and the questions of fact are disputed, it becomes difficult for the writ Court to come to any de cision. On totality of aforesaid circumstances, I feel that it is better for the parties to get their claims settled in the pending Civil Suit. Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits tha t the writ petitioner did not submit a written statement incorporating all her c laims in view of her petition pending before this Court and no counter claim was lodged. Be that as it may in view of the peculiar circumstances, the writ petit ioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate pleading in the pending Civil Suit and if such pleadings are filed then the learned Court shall permit the same to be brought on record. Once such claims are placed on record and the parties lea d evidence thereon, the learned Civil Court shall proceed in accordance with law to decide the matter finally. Mr. R. Ali further submits that once this writ pe titions are disposed of, there is apprehension that the bank may release the mon ey to the respondents No. 3 & 4. Once a Civil Suit is pending then both the plai ntiffs as well as the defendants are at liberty to file application praying for injunction and as such neither of the parties is without any remedy under such c ircumstances. With the above observation the writ petitions are closed. It is, however , necessary to keep on record that none of the observations made in these writ p etitions shall be binding on the learned Trial Court while deciding the aforesai d Civil Suit on merit. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.