1.Kiran Devi 2.Suraj Prakash 3.Shital Chhaya ……… v. 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2710 of 2020 ---------- 1.Kiran Devi 2.Suraj Prakash 3.Shital Chhaya ………… Petitioners Versus 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dist.-Ranchi 3.Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dist.-Ranchi 4.District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi 5.Sohagi Devi, wife of late Amlu Mahto, R/o Sarlakalan, Dist.-Ramgarh ………… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate 07/ 01.05.2024 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a direction upon the respondents to release the retiral benefits of late husband of the petitioner no.1, namely, Amlu Mahto who died in harness on 07.10.2017 working as Deputy Superintendent of Education in the office of the District Superintendent of Education at Ranchi. Further prayer has been made for compassionate appointment to the petitioner no.2 namely, Suraj Prakash, since the entire family is suffering from financial crises due to sudden death of her husband. 3. The deceased, husband of the petitioner no.1 died on 07.10.2017 while working as Deputy Superintendent of Education in the office of the District Superintendent of Education at Ranchi. Petitioner being the legally weeded 1 wife (second wife) is claiming compassionate appointment of her son as well as retiral benefits for herself. Representation has been filed for compassionate appointment and also for getting the death-cum-retiral benefits but no order has been passed till date. This Court after hearing the parties, reffered the matter before JHALSA for amicable settlement. Since first wife respondent No.5 has also made entry and claiming compassionate appointment to her son and death-cum-retiral benefits, the matter was sent to JHALSA for conciliation and mediation but a report has been received that the same has failed and as such the issue has to be decided by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioner is a legally wedded wife of the deceased husband, she is entitled for death-cum- retiral benefits and her sons and daughter being the legal heirs are also entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that for the lifetime never any claim was made by the first wife rather she was not living with the deceased husband. Learned counsel further submits that on date of death when representation was made for compassionate appointment by the son of the first wife but he was not found eligible for the same and as such a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for death-cum-reitral benefits as well as compassionate appointment to her son. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 places heavy reliance on different circulars of the State of Bihar and submits that second wife is not entitled for any pensionary benefits and son and daughter are also not entitled for compassionate appointment. First wife is entitled for all the benefits and the son out of the wedlock of the deceased husband and first wife is entitled for compassionate appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that initially the matter was referred to JHALSA for amicable settlement for distribution of the entire emoluments with equal share to all the parties but they did not agree for amicable settlement. The issue has to be decided by this Court and a direction be given to the State and State will act upon as per the direction by this Court. 2 7. Before delving deep into the matter it would be apposite to consider the entitlement of the parties, who is entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits and who is entitled for compassionate appointment. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 wherein it has been held that “Children of second void marriage legitimate are entitled to share family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity along with wife and children of first marriage.” Further as per service law, in case of dispute of settlement of retiral benefits, the government could hold enquiry about factum of second marriage and disburse the benefits to first wife and their children as well as to children born from second wife. Relevant paras of the judgment passed in case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow: 13. But then it is not necessary for us to consider if Narain Lal could have been charged of misconduct having contracted a second marriage when his first wife was living as no disciplinary proceedings were held against him during his lifetime. In the present case, we are concerned only with the question as to who is entitled to the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity on the death of Narain Lal. When there are two claimants to the pensionary benefits of a deceased employee and there is no nomination wherever required State Government has to hold an inquiry as to the rightful claimant. Disbursement of pension cannot wait till a civil court pronounces upon the respective rights of the parties. That would certainly be a long drawn affair. Doors of civil courts are always open to any party after and even before a decision is reached by the State Government as to who is entitled to pensionary benefits. Of course, inquiry conducted by the State Government cannot be a sham affair and it could also not be arbitrary. Decision has to be taken in a bona fide reasonable and rational manner. In the present case an inquiry was held which cannot be termed as sham. Result of the inquiry was that Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal lived as husband and wife since 1963. A presumption does arise, therefore, that marriage of Yogmaya Devi with Narain Lal was in accordance with Hindu rites and all ceremonies connected with a valid Hindu marriage were performed. This presumption Rameshwari Devi has been unable to rebut. Nevertheless, that, however, does not make the marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal as legal. Of course, when there is a charge of bigamy under Section 494 IPC strict proof of solemnisation of the second marriage with due observance of rituals and ceremonies had been insisted upon. 3 Since the representation has been made by the son of the first wife for consideration on the point of compassionate appointment. It can be considered as per the rules for compassionate appointment. If the son of the first wife is found not entitled for compassionate appointment, the same be given to the son of the second wife in accordance with law. Regarding death-cum-retiral benefits, admittedly second wife is not entitled for the same but the children born out of the wedlock from the deceased husband of the second wife are fully entitled for all the benefits including death- cum-retiral benefits and pensionary benefits. 8. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement and in view of the law laid down in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) this Court not takes any other view other than what has been taken in the case her case. Similar view has been reiterated in the case of Babita Devi Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2020) 1 JLJR. 9. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. Let it be made clear that the emoluments shall be distributed as per the law and after proper identification. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4