Smt. Sapna Devi @ Sapna Devi … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Primary School Education & Literacy Department
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1943 of 2023 Smt. Sapna Devi @ Sapna Devi ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Primary School Education & Literacy Department, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad 6. The District Education Officer, Dhanbad 7. The Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Senior Basic School, Chirkunda, Dhanbad 8. Abhishek Kumar 9. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- Mr. Tejo Mistry Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C to A.A.G-II Ms. Richa Sanchita ----- For the Petitioner: For the State: For Respondent No.9: 07/04.09.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 2121 dated 10.10.2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.5 whereby pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4842/2005, the petitioner’s representation for compassionate appointment as well as for payment of death- cum-retiral dues of Late Mahesh Ram to her, has been rejected. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband, namely, Mahesh Ram died in harness while working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Nirsa, Dhanbad in the year 2004. Late Mahesh Ram had solemnized first marriage with one Sushma Devi and after her death on 11.12.1997, he performed second marriage with the petitioner on 08.05.2001 subsequent to dissolution of her marriage with one Binod Kumar Ram in terms with the order dated 06.02.1999 passed in T(M)). S. No. 164/98. Since the petitioner is the only surviving legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, she deserves compassionate appointment as well as payment of death-cum- retiral dues of her deceased husband. 2 3. It is further submitted that W.P.(S) No. 4842/2005 earlier preferred by the petitioner in this regard was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2005 with a direction to the respondents to release the admitted death- cum-retiral dues legally payable to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order with further direction to the respondents to take final decision with regard to compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Though Cont. Case (Civil) No. 514/2021 filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 92.01.2023, particularly, in view of the fact that the impugned order dated 10.10.2021 was already passed by the respondent No.5, the petitioner was given liberty to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. It is also submitted that the impugned order dated 10.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.5 is arbitrary and illegal as the petitioner being the only surviving wife of the deceased employee has the first claim over his retiral dues as well as to get compassionate appointment. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C to A.A.G-II, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondents, submits that vide letter No. 963 dated 24.04.2006, the respondent No.5 had requested the petitioner to submit valid succession certificate for disbursement of death-cum- retiral dues of the deceased employee. However, she did not submit the same and ultimately vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2021, the respondent No.5 rejected her claim on the ground of non-production of succession certificate issued by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. It is also submitted that though the Circle Officer, Nirsa, Dhanbad had earlier issued a family certificate in favour of the petitioner vide memo No. 82 dated 24.08.2004, however, the same was subsequently modified vide letter No. 816 dated 01.10.2004 and a succession certificate was demanded from the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent No.5 asked the petitioner to produce the valid succession certificate. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. On perusal of the impugned order dated 10.10.2021, it appears that there is counter claim by the respondent No.8 being the son of Late Sushma Devi (first wife of Late Mahesh Ram). Under the said situation, the respondent No.5 has asked the parties to obtain succession certificate from the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 6. Reference may be made to the order dated 17.07.2023 whereby the petitioner was granted time to file a supplementary affidavit stating as to whether Late Mahesh Ram, during his life time, had mentioned her name as his wife in the service records. 7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 01.09.2023 stating that despite her best efforts, she could not obtain the service records of Late Mahesh Ram, except one LIC policy in which her name has been mentioned as his nominee. However, she came to know that during his life time, Late Mahesh Ram had not mentioned the name of any family member in his service book. 8. It is thus evident that the petitioner’s name has not been mentioned as his wife by Late Mahesh Ram in his service records. Only because the petitioner’s name has been mentioned as a nominee in one of the LIC policies of Late Mahesh Ram, the same does not entitle her to receive the retiral benefits due in favour of Late Mahesh Ram or to claim compassionate appointment, particularly, keeping in view that there is counter claim by the respondent No.8. 9. Under the said circumstances, the respondent No.5 has rightly rejected the aforesaid claim of the petitioner and has directed the parties to obtain succession certificate from the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. Hence, having found no infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.10.2021, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. It is however observed that if the petitioner and the respondent No.8 arrive at a mutual agreement with respect to their respective claims, they may 4 represent the competent authority for re-consideration of the same which will be dealt with by the said authority keeping in view the changed situation. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)