Patna High Court - Orders
Smt.Lalmani Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 September, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.877 of 2012
In
Civil Writ Jurisdictioin Case No. 11178 of 2010
======================================================
Smt. Lalmani Devi W/O Late Shiv Narayan Pandey, Resident of Village-
Barki Delha, Rajakothi, P.O.- Railway Station Gaya, P.S.- Delha, District-
Gaya
.... .... Appellant/Respondent.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resources Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
5. The District Magistrate, Gaya
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya
7. The Area Education Officer, Sadar, Gaya
8. The Head Master, Government Middle School, Kulapi Nagar Prakhand,
Gaya, District- Gaya
9. Smt. Gayatri Devi W/O Sri Ramraj Tiwary, Resident of Village- Pauthu,
P.O.- Jamahaur (Pauthu), P.S.- Jamhaur, District- Aurangabad, Bihar
.... Respondents 1st Set.
10. Pramod Kumar Pandey, S/O Late Badri Pandey, Resident Of Village-
Barki Delha Rajakothi, P.O.- Railway Station Gaya, P.S.- Delha,
District- Gaya
.... .... Respondent 2nd set/Petitioner.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG 1.
For the Respondent no. 9: Mr. Chakrapani, Advocate.
For the respondent no. 10: Mr. Gayanand Roy, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
2 Patna High Court LPA No.877 of 2012 (6) dt.27-09-2012
2/4
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
6 27-09-2012Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st January 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 11178 of 2010, the respondent no. 9 has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
Learned Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that although the appellant was impleaded as respondent no. 9 to the writ petition, without giving notice to him, the impugned order has been made ex parte against the respondent no. 9.
We do appreciate that the impugned order has been made ex parte against the respondent no. 9. However, the matter does not deserve to be remanded for consideration afresh.
The matter at dispute is the compassionate employment pursuant to the death of late Badri Pandey, a Government servant, who died in harness in 2007. The writ petitioner is the younger son of the late Badri Pandey whereas the present appellant is the widow of the older son of the late Badri Pandey.
The learned single Judge has accepted the claim for compassionate employment made by the writ petitioner on condition that he undertakes to maintain the appellant, the widow of the deceased son of late Badri Pandey and the brother of the writ petitioner.
Learned Advocate Mr. Sinha has submitted that the appellant was at least required to be noticed. He has further submitted that the appellant, being the widow of the pre-deceased son, has equal right to compassionate employment pursuant to the 3 Patna High Court LPA No.877 of 2012 (6) dt.27-09-2012 3/4 death of late Badri Pandey.
At the outset, we may note that Mr. Sinha is not right in his submission that the appellant is the widow of the pre- deceased son of late Badri Pandey. The late Badri Pandey died on 5th August 2007 whereas the late husband of the appellant, Shiv Narayan Pandey died on 16th January 2010, more than two years after the death of the said Badri Pandey. Now, the writ petitioner, the only surviving son of the late Badri Pandey, would be the one who is entitled to compassionate employment, if otherwise eligible under the Scheme for compassionate employment. The claim of the appellant for compassionate employment in preference to the writ petitioner is not maintainable. We, therefore, see no merit in this Appeal.
In course of arguments, it emerged that the terminal benefits admissible to late Badri Pandey have not yet been paid to his nominee/heirs.
Learned Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar has appeared for the respondent authorities. He has submitted that the record of nomination is not available with the respondents. Unless the succession certificate is produced, the State Government will not be able to disburse the amount of terminal benefits.
The State Government has filed counter affidavit to indicate that more than Rs. 03 lakhs in terms of the terminal benefits of late Badri Pandey is due and payable. However, in absence of proper nomination or the succession certificate obtained by the heirs of the late Badri Pandey, the amount has not been disbursed.
Be that as it may, the appellant has already approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in 4 Patna High Court LPA No.877 of 2012 (6) dt.27-09-2012 4/4 CWJC No. 16310 of 2010 for remittance of the amount of terminal benefits. The said writ petition is pending before the learned single Judge. Let the matter be considered by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 16310 of 2010.
Subject to the above observation, Appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Sujit/-