Jharkhand High Court
Basmati Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited & O on 4 August, 2017
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2173 of 2012
Basmati Devi, widow of late Binda Singh, residing at village Mau,
Post Mau, PSTikari, DistrictGaya, Bihar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, PO&PSDhanbad,
District Dhanbad
2. The ChairmancumManaging Director, Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, Koyla Bhawan, PO&PSDhanbad, District Dhanbad
3. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla
Bhawan, PO&PSDhanbad, District Dhanbad
4. The General Manager, 1012, Putki Balihari Area, Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, Balihari Area, POPutki Balihari, PSPutki
Balihari, DistrictDhanbad
5. The Agent/Project Officer, Putki Balihari Project/Colliery,
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Putki Balihari Area, POPutki
Balihari, PSPutki Balihari, DistrictDhanbad
... ... Respondents
-----------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate
------------------
09/04.08.2017Claiming monetary compensation with arrears and interest from 07.03.1982 till the date of actual payment and for payment of deathcumretiral benefits, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. The petitioner claims that she is legallywedded wife of employeeBinda Singh who died on 07.03.1982. In support of her claim she has produced a death certificate dated 13.05.1995 and a dependency certificate issued on 19.03.1996. She has also produced an application form by which her son made an application for compassionate appointment after the death of late Binda Singh. However, all these documents do not establish that the petitioner is the one who was legallywedded to the person named Binda Singh, who was employed under the respondentM/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The application for compassionate appointment does not bear any signature or date.
It is a selffilled application produced by the petitioner in the present proceeding. Authenticity of the dependency certificate dated 19.03.1996 or the death certificate dated 13.05.1995 also cannot be ascertained, after a lapse of more than 20 years. Moreover, a person who has kept a copy of the death certificate and the dependency certificate for long 20 years must explain, why she did not approach this Court for postretiral benefits for 30 years after the death of her husband.
3. The respondents have taken a stand that no record pertaining to the petitioner is available in their records. Her identity has been doubted and on the basis of available records, it is pleaded that her claim that the employeeBinda Singh died on 07.03.1982 is false. Date of birth of the said Binda Singh is recorded as 01.07.1919 and he joined service under the respondentM/s BCCL on 20.01.1949 and, thus, he would have superannuated from service in July, 1979. In the above facts genuineness of the alleged joining letter dated 08.09.1979 has also been doubted. A copy of letter dated 08.09.1979 is not available in the official records. In these facts the respondents have asserted that the petitioner is either not a genuine person or she is a fictitious person. Apparently, taking the year of birth of the employeeBinda Singh, the petitioner, if really, is the legallywedded wife of the employee, she would also be in her 90s.
4. Finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/