PATNA, India, July 18 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 10:

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to ensure payment of all the benefits of her deceased-husband, who was an employee under the office of the respondents no.3 to 5 and died in harness on 24.01.2001, while working as Foreman.

3. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to note here that the sole-petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and the daughter of the sole petitioner (respondent no.3) has been transposed/substituted pursuant to the order of this Court.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the marriage of the original petitioner was solemnized with Bhagirathi Mistri on 16.04.1975 at Safiabad in the district of Munger. Out of their wedlock, a daughter was born; who is presently petitioner herein and has been pursuing their case. While the erstwhile employee was residing at Lalmatiya along with his wife and daughter, he developed some illicit relationship with private respondent no.1 and started residing with her. Subsequently, the original petitioner was ousted from her matrimonial home. A Maintenance Case bearing no. 52(M) of 1996 came to be filed under Section 125 of the CrPC. Upon notice, the erstwhile employee entered his appearance and after hearing the parties, learned Magistrate has directed to pay Rs.450/- per month to the original petitioner as maintenance. It is further contended that during the pendency of the matrimonial suit, the erstwhile employee also filed Divorce Suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act; however, in the meanwhile, he died in harness, leaving behind the petitioner and her daughter. Upon death of the erstwhile employee, the petitioner approached the authorities of the Eastern Coal Field Limited for settlement of death-cum-retiral claim; however, since there was some dispute with regard to nomination made by the erstwhile employee, who nominated the name of respondents no.1 and 2; hence, the original petitioner was asked to bring succession certificate. The original petitioner filed Title Suit No.57/2002, which finally came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner on 14.01.2013, the copy of the judgment and decree has been placed on record as Annexure-1. The case of the petitioner is rest upon the judgment and decree passed in favour of the original petitioner, basing upon which it is submitted that notwithstanding the fact that she declared as legally wedded wife of the erstwhile employee, denial of death-cum-retiral benefit is absolutely unjustified and illegal.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further contended that the respondent authorities in collusion with the private respondents, in hot haste manner distributed all the death-cum-retiral benefits in their favour without waiting for order by a competent authority/court, which also shows mala fide on their part.

6. Referring to the order of this Court dated 06.01.2020, it is further urged that the learned Court has categorically directed that until further orders, no remaining payment shall be made to any of the parties; nonetheless, the private respondent no.1 was allowed family pension till her death. All the more, the respondent no.2 has also been allowed appointment on compassionate ground.

7. Upon notice, private respondents no.1 and 2 entered their appearance and made preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the case on account of territorial jurisdiction, besides other submissions.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjQwMTcjMjAxOSMxI04=-UFRfHLjhTQQ=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.