Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manisha Kumari vs Northern Coalfield Ltd on 5 August, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36318
1 WP-27064-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 5th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27064 of 2025
MANISHA KUMARI
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Choudhary - Advocate assisted by Shri Shantanu Seth
- Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order/communication dated 22.3.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 by which the claim of the petitioner for extension of benefit of CMPF/Pension has been declined.
2 . It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is second wife of the deceased employee. The first wife of the deceased employee has already died. The deceased employee had mentioned the name of the petitioner in the nomination form and this fact was taken note of at the time of payment of gratuity to the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner cannot be relegated to take recourse to Civil Court for grant of succession certificate, inasmuch as, the matter of extension of pensionary benefits is governed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 06-08-2025 11:08:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36318 2 WP-27064-2025 Rules/Scheme, which are applicable to the concerned employee and the person who is entitled as per the Rules/Scheme is entitled for the same and thus cannot be compelled by the employer to approach the Civil Court for issuance of succession certificate. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani & others - (2016) 16 SCC 229 and Raj Kumari and another Vs. Krishna and others - (2015) 14 SCC 511 and also a decision of this Court in Sita Bai Sinodia and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others - 2002 SCC OnLine MP 203.
3) Heard the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.
4 ) A perusal of impugned order/communication dated 22.3.2025 (Annexure P-1) reflects that when the petitioner submitted claim for extension of benefit of CMPF/Pension, it has been informed to the petitioner that in the CMPF nomination, there is mention of the name of first wife of the deceased employee. Simultaneously, it was also intimated to the petitioner that in the order, by which the name of the deceased employee was struck-off from the Rolls of the Company, the name of the son and his wife were mentioned. The impugned order also reflects that in some orders passed by the Court, there was no description of the parents of the deceased employee namely Avadh Bihari Harijan. Hence, the family background of the deceased was not clear and accordingly, the petitioner was advised to approach the Civil Court for Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 06-08-2025 11:08:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36318 3 WP-27064-2025 grant of succession certificate while impleading all the necessary parties. Communication dated 7.10.2024 (Annexure P-11) also reflects that the deceased employee had availed advance loan facility for the purpose of marriage of his son as well as the daughter on two occasions and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to submit the details. There is another communication dated 16.4.2025 (Annexure P-12), which refers that the deceased employee left behind a son namely Roshan, who had produced some order of the Court before the employer. Prima facie, it reflects that in the order of granting gratuity to the petitioner passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, apart from the employer, no one was impleaded as opposite party/respondent and even employer was not represented before the Controlling Authority, which is evident from Annexure P-7.
5 ) Further, the petitioner has not brought on record any Rules or Scheme which stipulates that in the event of death of the first wife, second wife of the deceased employee would be entitled for pension/CMPF, hence reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani & others (supra) is misplaced. The Apex Court in Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani & others (supra) in paragraph 17 clearly held that the pension is to be given under the provision of Scheme. In the present case, the petitioner has not clarified in the entire memo of petition as to under which Rules/Scheme, the petitioner is entitled for the pensionary benefit. Simultaneously, the decision Raj Kumari and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 06-08-2025 11:08:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36318 4 WP-27064-2025 another Vs. Krishna and others (supra) was arising out of a decision of the Civil Court. There was decree by the trial Court in relation to the pensionary benefit. The decision of this Court in Sita Bai Sinodia and others (supra) is also of no assistance to the petitioner until and unless the petitioner is able to establish that she is entitled for pensionary benefit under some Rules/Scheme.
6) In this view of the matter, apparently there is disputed question of fact, inasmuch as, one Roshan has also claimed the terminal dues of the deceased employee being a son. The Apex Court in the case of Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited Vs. State of Bihar & others - (2022) 16 SCC 428 observed that "in cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide the decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with". Further, in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Others Vs. Sukamani Das (Smt.) & another - (1999) 7 SCC 298, the Apex Court observed that "it is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitions to approach the civil court as it Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 06-08-2025 11:08:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36318 5 WP-27064-2025 was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995".
7) In view of the aforesaid, as there appears to be other claimants also of terminal dues of the deceased employee, hence, in the considered view of this Court, the Authority concerned did not commit any error in issuing the impugned order/communication dated 22.3.2025 (Annexure P-1).
8 ) Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE PB Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 06-08-2025 11:08:23