1. Ranjeet Toppo 2. Kuna Toppo v. ………
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5455 of 2021 1. Ranjeet Toppo 2. Kuna Toppo ---------- Versus ………. Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Director General of Police, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar, (STF) Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar, (STF) Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ………. Respondents. With W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021 Nirmala Binha ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police, Special Task Force (STF), Dhurwa P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Superintendent of Police (Administration), having office at Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar, (STF), Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar, (STF), Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ………. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners ----------- : For the Respondents :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate Mr. Randhir Kr. Sharma [in W.P.(S). No. 5455 of 2021] Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate [in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021] Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG [in W.P.(S). No. 5455 of 2021] Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC-III [in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021] 12/ 14.12.2023 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. In view of identical facts and prayers made in both the cases, they are
Decision
heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2 3. In W.P.(S). No. 5455 of 2021, the brothers of late Francis Toppo, who died on 03.03.2019 while posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar, Special Task Force, have approached this Court for direction upon the respondents to pay death-cum-retiral benefits and to appoint the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. 4. Similarly, in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021, wife of late Francis Toppo has prayed for direction upon the respondents to pay all death-cum-retiral benefits including GPF, Gratuity, GIS, Family Pension and all other admissible dues to the petitioner on account of death of her husband. Further prayer has been made for payment of interest @ 9% p.a. on all admissible dues payable to the petitioner from the date it has fallen due till the date of actual payment. 5. As per the factual matrix, late Francis Toppo, working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar, Special Task Force under Jharkhand Police died in harness on 03.03.2019. After death of Francis Toppo, her wife [petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021] approached the respondents for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of Francis Toppo. It is the specific case of petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021 that though she made representation for grant of pensionery benefits but the same has not been extended on frivolous ground. 6. Similarly petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 5455 of 2021 are also claiming death-cum-retiral benefits and compassionate appointment of petitioner No. 2 on account of death of their brother, Francis Toppo. It is stated that late Francis Toppo was married with one Nirmala Binha [petitioner in W.P.(S). 4698 of 2021] in the year 2014 in accordance with Tribal Rights and Rituals but some disputes cropped-up between the brother of the petitioner and his wife Nirmala Binha resultantly only within 15-20 days of their marriage the wife Nirmala Binha left the house and thereafter, she never returned nor ever did she resorted to her matrimonial conjugal rights with the brother of the present petitioners. It is further stated that the father of the petitioners died on 01.10.1986 and their mother also died on 02.02.2020 and as such, 3 the present petitioners are the only surviving legal heirs and successors of deceased, Francis Toppo. As such, they are entitled for the death-cum-retiral benefits as well as all the admissible dues and also for appointment of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. However, till date the same has not been extended to the petitioners. Hence, they have been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of their grievances. 7. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021 submits that as per the Family Pension Rules wife being the first legal heir of deceased husband, is entitled for entire amount of death-cum-retiral benefits and the same cannot be denied to her. Learned counsel further submits that she has come to know that brothers of her deceased husband are also claiming death-cum-retiral benefits but as per Pension Rules they are not the legal heirs and as such, not entitled for any benefits. It has been further argued that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of present petitioner and grant all admissible dues treating her to be the 1st legal heir as per Rule-7(2) of Jharkhand Pension Rules. 8. Mr. J.J. Sanga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 5455 of 2021 submits that earlier the mother of deceased, Francis Toppo had approached the respondents claiming the death-cum- retiral benefits and also for compassionate appointment but subsequently she died and after her death, the present petitioners are only surviving legal heirs of deceased Francis Toppo and as such, they are entitled for death- cum-retiral benefits as well as compassionate appointment. Learned counsel submits that petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021 has already deserted their brother Francis Toppo and enquiry to that effect has already been made in which the said fact has been proved and as such, as per customary law also since petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021 has already deserted her husband, Francis Toppo she is not entitled for any benefits, particularly the death-cum-retiral benefits and as such, the claim of petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021 is not in consonance with the prevalent Rules 4 and Customs of the Tribal and as such, the respondent-State be directed to pay entire death-cum-retiral benefits to the brothers of the deceased Francis Toppo. 9. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned SC-III representing the State by vehemently opposing the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021, submits that admittedly the mother of the deceased was made nominee by the deceased employee and as per nomination paper she was entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits. It is further argued since there is dispute regarding the claim as the brothers of the deceased Francis Toppo have also approached the Court claiming themselves to be the legal heirs it would apposite to direct them to get succession certificate and thereafter, claim for any benefits in accordance with law. Learned counsel further argues that even enquiry was made by the respondent-authorities in which it came that wife [petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021] had deserted the deceased husband and as such, as per customary rules, she is not entitled for any benefits. The enquiry report has been brought on record and annexed as Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.(S). No. 5455 of 2021. 10. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the after death of Francis Toppo, his wife being the legal heir as per the Pension Rules approached the respondent-authorities for getting death-cum-retiral dues. The contention of the respondents is that matter was enquired into and thereafter, it was found that wife had deserted the deceased husband and as such, she is not entitled for any benefits. The said contention of respondents is not acceptable to this Court. From enquiry report it appears that she has not deserted the deceased husband rather, upon examination it was found that she was regularly visiting her husband’s house but it was only after his death, when she was assaulted by her in-laws she left her matrimonial house, which cannot be said to be a desertion in the eyes of law. Unless and until there is judicial separation it cannot be said that wife had deserted and she is not entitled for the death-cum-retiral benefits and other admissible dues. As per Rule-7(2) of Jharkhand Pension 5 Rules wife is the first legal heir to obtain any emoluments i.e. death-cum- retiral benefit benefits. 11. From the documents brought on record and the argument advanced by the parties it appears that mother was made nominee in the nomination paper. Even if this fact is accepted, now she is no more to receive the claim and since wife is the first legal heir in the eyes of law, she is entitled to receive all the admissible dues of her deceased husband. The arguments of Mr. J.J. Sanga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 5455 of 2021 that as per Customary Rules, wife is not entitled for any benefits as she has deserted her matrimonial house, is not acceptable to this Court. It is not in dispute that Service Condition has to be implemented in case of a Government Servant and as per Pension Rules, the benefits are extended to the legal heirs. Admittedly, wife is the first legal heir and she is entitled to receive death-cum-retiral benefits and other admissible dues accrued on account of death of her husband Francis Toppo. 12. Under such circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay entire retiral benefits including family pension to the wife [petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021], who is entitled for the same. The entire benefits shall be extended to her within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 13. Resultantly, W.P.(S). No. 5455 of 2021 filed by the brothers of the deceased Francis Toppo stands dismissed and W.P.(S). No. 4698 of 2021 filed by the wife of deceased Francis Toppo stands allowed. 14. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)