Patna High Court - Orders
Nirmala Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 July, 2014
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18746 of 2013
======================================================
1. Nirmala Devi W/O Late Yogendra Tiwari Resident Of Village Of
Rampur Balha, Post- Rahuan,P.S- Kurhani, District- Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Collector Vaishali at Hazipur.
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Vaishali, Hazipur.
4. The District Provident Fund Officer, Vaishali, Hazipur.
5. The Accountant Genera, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Jha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, SC 23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL ORDER
4 24-07-2014Petitioner claims herself to be the second wife of the erstwhile employee, namely, Late Yogendra Tiwari. According to her, she was legally married wife because the second marriage was performed after the death of the first wife. She is before the Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant her family pension at least.
All would have been well for the petitioner, if the basic assertion made in the writ application was accepted to be the final position on such claim. But it is not so because now the respondent authorities have filed a counter affidavit giving a reason why petitioner cannot be given any benefit since all Patna High Court CWJC No.18746 of 2013 (4) dt.24-07-2014 2/3 benefits have been settled in favour of the daughter of the first wife, who had obtained a declaration from a court in Succession Certificate Case No.2 of 2007, a copy of which has already been annexed as Annexure- B and served on the counsel for the petitioner earlier.
From a reading of the decree annexed with the succession certificate, it is evident that every claim and entitlement flowing from the erstwhile employee has been ordered to be paid to the daughter of the first wife. Obviously, since she was already married, there could be no occasion for giving a direction for payment of family pension. It is this vacuum which the petitioner wants to draw advantage of.
Petitioner has been ousted from any claim in this regard, which would be evident from Annexure- B. Family pension cannot accrue to her as a matter of right. For that she has to overcome and get some declaration over and above or by convincing the superior forum to interfere with Annexure- B before she can claim any entitlement of any kind much less family pension.
Petitioner has chosen a wrong forum. For the relief she was looking for, Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the answer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18746 of 2013 (4) dt.24-07-20143/3
Writ is dismissed with liberty to explore avenues of relief.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U