Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Debjani Majhi vs Union Of India on 29 September, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015
-----
Smt. Debjani Majhi, Wife of Naba Kumar Majhi, residing at Village-Natungram, Post Office-Belai, Police Station- Nanoor, District-Birbhum, PIN-731215, West Bengal.
... ... Petitioner Versus
1. Union of India, Service through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Room No.321, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
2. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Service through the Chairman/Managing Director, having office at Town, Post Office and Police Station - Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand, PIN-828116.
3. Chief General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Kasunda Area, Post Office - Kasunda, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand, PIN-828116.
4. Project Officer, Gondudih Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office - Kasunda (Area-VI), District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand, PIN-828116.
5. General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Kasunda Area, Post Office - Kasunda, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand, PIN-828116.
6. Regional Commissioner, Dhanbad Region-I, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Deo, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Radha K. Gupta, Advocate
------
Order No. 10/Dated 29th September, 2023
1. At the outset, Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that inadvertently the Coal Mines Provident Fund has not been made a party to the instant writ petition though the writ petitioner has prayed for making payment of C.M.P.F. amount in her favour and, therefore, he has sought for W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015 2 leave of this Court to implead Coal Mines Provident Fund as party to the proceeding.
2. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer is allowed. He is directed to implead the Coal Mines Provident Fund as respondent in the instant writ petition and make necessary correction in the cause title in course of the day.
3. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs :-
"1. That the petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in a nature of Mandamus, or an appropriate Writ
(s)/ Rule (s)/ Order (s) /Direction (s) commanding the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to release and disburse death retiral benefit of Naba Kumar Majhi being the husband of the petitioner who was an employee in the category of Caplamp Fitter under the respondent No.2 with effect from September 01, 1972 and who was a holder of ID card No.228901/7R, C.M.P.F. A/c. No. D/529440 and who has been missing since 1992 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated October 16, 2012 forthwith;
And the petitioner also prays for consideration of the representation of the petitioner for employment of her son Sanat Kumar Majhi (Class-VIII standard) being the son of Naba Kumar Majhi who was an employee of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on compassionate ground under died-in-
harness category;"
4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as :-
W.P.(S) No.6343 of 20153
The husband of the petitioner namely Naba Kumar Majhi was an employee in the category of Caplamp Fitter under the respondent No. 2 and was holder of ID card No. 228901/7R with C.M.P.F. Account No. D/529440 and the appointment of the husband of the petitioner had been effected by the respondent No.2 on September 01, 1972.
5. In the year 1992 when the husband of the petitioner was in employment, he has gone missing and in spite of search the husband could not be traced out. After waiting for a long time and after expiry of 12 years from the date of missing it should be deemed that the husband of the petitioner is not alive.
6. The marriage of the petitioner had been solemnized in 1977 and from such wedlock two sons and two daughters were born and both daughters are married and two sons are major and aged about 26 years and 24 years respectively.
7. The husband of the petitioner had been dismissed from service on October 15, 1992 by the authority concerned and the reasons for such dismissal are not known to the petitioner.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that as her husband had rendered service under the respondent No.2 for 20 years with effect from 1972, the petitioner being the lawful married wife is entitled to get death retiral benefit due to W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015 4 the missing of the husband since 1992. The petitioner is also entitled to make a prayer for giving employment to the elder son namely Sanat Kumar Majhi on compassionate ground under died-in-harness category.
9. The petitioner being the wife of the employee Naba Kumar Majhi submitted a representation on October 16, 2012 before the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for release and disbursement of death retiral benefit and also with a prayer for employment of elder son Sanat Kumar Majhi on compassionate ground.
10. The petitioner having not received any reply from the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had sent a legal notice dated January 28, 2013 through Advocate for consideration of the representation dated October 16, 2012 for release and disbursement of death retiral benefit relating to Naba Kumar Majhi who was an employee of the respondent No.2 having ID card No. 228901/7R, C.M.P.F. A/c. No. D/529440 and for consideration of the employment of the elder son of the petitioner on compassionate ground.
11. In view of the said legal notice, the petitioner received an undated reply from respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on April 11, 2013 denying the contents of the representation made by the petitioner. W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015 5
12. It was also alleged for and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that the title of the employee was 'Majee' and not 'Majhi' as stated by the petitioner.
13. It was further alleged that in the service record the name of the wife of Naba Kumar Majee was recorded as Subhra Devi and while nominating the nominee for payment of gratuity the said employee Naba Kumar Majee had mentioned the name of his wife as Subhadra Devi to the extent of full share and thereby the claim of the petitioner had been denied and rejected having no merit.
14. After receipt of the said communication the petitioner had replied vide letter dated June 19, 2013 contending inter alia that the Local Panchayat Authority namely Nabagram Gram Panchayat and Nowanagar Kadda Gram Panchayat had issued certificates confirming the name of the petitioner as Smt. Debjani Majhi. It was further contended that the Panchayat Authority of Nabagram Gram Panchayat had also certified that the husband of the petitioner namely Naba Kumar Majhi has only one wife namely Smt. Debjani Majhi and he had no other wife under the name Smt. Subhadra Devi as alleged in the letter.
15. When no response was given by the respondents, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.3201 of 2014 which was disposed of on W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015 6 24.02.2015 directing the respondent no.3 i.e. the Chief General Manager, B.C.C.L., Kusunda Area, District Dhanbad to treat the writ petition as representation and take decision in accordance with law within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
16. The respondent No.5 by the impugned Memo No.BCCL/Kus./GM/2015/633 dated 27/29.06.2015 has communicated the decision to the petitioner whereby and whereunder the representation submitted by the petitioner regarding payment of Death Retiral Benefit and Employment on Compassionate ground had been rejected and, thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.
17. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that even after her husband become traceless, the retiral benefits, appointment on compassionate ground and the benefit under the Coal Mines Provident Fund have not been paid even in spite of order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.3201 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.02.2015.
18. It has been contended that in pursuance to the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.3201 of 2014, the order has been passed by the concerned authority said to be competent authority on 27/29.06.2015 wherein the claim so far as it relates to the W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015 7 appointment on compassionate ground and the post retiral/death benefit have been denied due to the reason that the husband of the petitioner was chargesheeted and subsequently the charge leveled in the aforesaid chargesheet has been found to be proved in the domestic enquiry and in pursuance thereto, the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 15.10.1992.
19. The authority concerned has passed an order rejecting the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the employee Naba Kumar Manjhi has nominated the name of his wife Smt. Shubhra Manjhi as nominee for payment of CMPF accumulation under the provision of Coal Mines Provident Fund Act. The aforesaid order dated 27/29.06.2015 has been assailed in the instant writ petition.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that the order of dismissal dated 15.10.1992 has not been challenged as ever and hence, what has been stipulated in the order dated 27/29.06.2015 to the effect that the husband of the writ petitioner, namely, Naba Kumar Manjhi has been dismissed from service, is set at rest, is not in dispute.
21. He has also submitted that since the order of dismissal has not been questioned and hence, the decision W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015 8 so far as it relates to providing appointment on compassionate ground and post death benefit is concerned, the same is not admissible in view of the fact that the husband of the writ petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 15.10.1992 and the same has attained its finality since the same has not been challenged before any forum.
22. The grievance mainly in this writ petition is that the writ petitioner namely, Smt. Debjani Majhi is the wife of Naba Kumar Manjhi, but instead of referring the name of the writ petitioner, namely, Smt. Debjani Majhi, in the impugned order, reference of another lady, namely, Smt. Shubhra Manjhi, has been mentioned as nominee under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
23. It has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner referring to Annexure-A appended to the counter affidavit, that the respondents themselves are not certain that who is the wife since in the aforesaid Annexure-A which is Form-F, the name of nominee, i.e., wife, has been referred as Subhra Devi.
24. It has further been contended by referring to paragraph 12 of the reply to the counter affidavit wherein statement made at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit has been responded wherein it has been stated that the fact about making reference of Smt. Subhra Devi as the W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015 9 wife of the employee concerned is absolutely incorrect since the actual wife is the petitioner, namely, Debjani Majhi.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in the aforesaid premise that the CMPF amount which is legally to be paid in favour of the wife of the employee who happens to be the writ petitioner.
26. Therefore, the said amount ought to have been paid in favour of the writ petitioner but even then the same has not been paid.
27. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the C.M.P.F., has vehemently opposed such prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner claiming herself to be the wife, since, as per the disclosure of the nominee made by the concerned employee, the name of Smt. Subhra Devi is referred therein, as would appear from Annexure-A of the counter affidavit.
28. It has been contended, in response to the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that in Form-F there is reference of Smt. Subhra Devi and not Smt. Subhra Manjhi, even the said contradiction will not provide any aid to the writ petitioner, since, she is not Smt. Subhra Devi, rather she is Smt. Debjani Majhi.
29. Therefore, the authority, while taking decision for disbursement of the amount of CMPF, has passed an order W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015 10 for production of succession certificate issued by the appropriate legal forum in her favour.
30. Learned counsel for the CMPF, in the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the decision so taken so far as the disbursement of the CMPF amount is concerned, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.
31. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the order passed by the authority.
32. It appears from the material available on record that the writ petitioner is Debjani Majhi while the respondents, based upon the nomination made by the concerned employee, has disclosed the name of his wife as Smt. Subhra Devi.
33. The writ petitioner, admittedly, is disputing the aforesaid fact by responding to the statement made under paragraph 11 of counter affidavit by filing rejoinder as under paragraph 12 thereof.
34. This Court, in view of the aforesaid fact, is of the view that in such a disputed question of fact regarding the identity of wife, if the authority concerned has taken decision for production of succession certificate, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.
35. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the decision so far as it relates to disbursement of the amount W.P.(S) No.6343 of 2015 11 under the CMPF head to be paid on production of succession certificate suffers from no error.
36. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
37. However, so far as the observation made in the order impugned, the writ petitioner may avail the same.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) A.F.R. Birendra/