Jharkhand High Court
Jirwa Kamin vs C C L on 24 March, 2014
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 279 of 2013
---
Jirwa Kamin --- --- ---- Petitioner
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited through its
Chairman cum Managing Director & others --- --- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, Advocate
For the CCL: Mr. A.K. Das & Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate
For the CMPF: Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
---
03/ 24.03.2014Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Husband of the petitioner died on 24th October 1996 while working as Ex- TR Worker in Kedla Open Cast Project under the respondent CCL. The petitioner got compassionate appointment in the year 1998 as widow of the deceased and is working under the respondents. The petitioner also got claim of pension settled vide Pension Payment Order dated 01st October 2010, as per statement made in the counter affidavit of the respondent CCL. She also received gratuity amount and life cover scheme amount in the year 1997. She also received the CMPF share of the widow i.e. 1/3rd as she was the nominee of the deceased employee. It is also evident from para-10 of the counter affidavit that the deceased employee had two minor children Late Dasai Munda and Late Budhani Kumari who though were alive at the time of his death, but died on 13th March 2000 and 25th June 2000 respectively.
3. In the wake of the aforesaid facts which are not disputed by the respondent CMPF, the CMPF is not releasing the balance CMPF amount to the petitioner insisting upon production of succession certificate on the basis of clause-64 of Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. Para-64 is evidenced herein-below:
"64. Accumulation of a Deceased Member -- to whom payable:-
On the death of a member before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable, before payment has been made-
(i) if a nomination made by the member in accordance with paragraph 62 subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or that part thereof to which the nomination relates, shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in accordance with such nomination;
(ii) If no nomination subsists or if the nomination relates only to a part of the amount standing to his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall become payable to the members of his family in equal shares, provided that no share shall be payable to -
(a) sons who have attained majority;
(b) sons of a deceased son who have attained majority;
(c) married daughters whose husbands are alive;
(d) married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive; if there is any members of the family other than those specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d);
provided further that the widow or widows, and the child or children of a deceased son shall receive between them in equal parts only and share which that son would have received if he had survived the member and had not attained the age of majority at the time of the member's death. [(iii) In any case to which the provisions of clause (i) and (ii) do not apply the whole amount (that would have been otherwise payable in his case) shall be payable to the person legally entitled to] [provided that (i) where such payment does not exceed rupees seven hundred and fifty, the Assistant Commissioner or (ii) where it exceeds rupees seven hundred and fifty but does not exceed rupees three thousand, the Regional Commissioner or (iii) where it exceed rupees three thousand but does not exceed rupees five thousand, the Joint Commissioner or (iv) where it exceeds rupees five thousand the Commissioner, may after giving notices to such person and making such summary enquiry as he things fit, make payment of the amount to the person who appears to him to be legally entitled, and any payment from such person such security as he considers necessary, and any payment so made shall be a full discharge from all liabilities in respect of the amount so paid].
Provided further that where the amount exceeds rupees twenty five thousand, no payment shall be made to a person unless he is in possession of a succession certificate issued in his name by a competent court."
4. Apparently, it is evident from the facts indicated herein above that the deceased had been survived by two minor children who also died in the year 2000. The petitioner being the widow is therefore justified in making the claim for balance amount of CMPF lying in the name of the deceased employee which was due to the two minor children, a per para-64 clause (ii).
5. Counsel for the respondent CCL submits that the claim of the petitioner has already been forwarded to the CMPF.
6. In the wake of the aforesaid facts therefore, the insistence of the respondent CMPF upon production of succession certificate, does not seem to be justified. Accordingly, the CMPF is directed to release the balance amount of CMPF in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with statutory interest, if any.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/