BIMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner, who was serving with the respondents, has expired on 20th June, 2011 and since then the petitioner is not paid the death-cum-retiral benefits, although the names of the present petitioner and her daughter reflect in the service record of her deceased husband. Necessary documents have also been annexed as Annexure 1 to the memo of petition and at paragraph no. 19 of the writ petition, which is part and parcel of Annexure 1, the names of petitioner as well as her daughter have been mentioned and there is no third name as a legal heir of the deceased employee. Moreover, it has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly in the General Provident Fund Nomination Form also the name of the petitioner has been mentioned. The said submission is at paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition, supported by Annexure 2 to the memo of petition. In Annexure 2 at page 2 of the writ petition, the name of the petitioner is reflecting as the legal heir of the deceased employee and no other name has been mentioned in the said document. Thus, for general provident fund amount as well as that of other retirement benefits, the petitioner is entitled to get the same, because of the deceased of her husband. The name of the husband of the present petitioner is Pandu Brijiya. Despite these documents, which are available with the respondents, the authorities of the respondent-State are not paying the amount of general provident fund nor they are paying other retirement benefits including family pension to the petitioner, only on the ground that one more lady, namely, Shilo Devi, has written one cryptic letter, which is annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure B. Neither the respondents are knowing nor the petitioner is knowing who is this lady. Unlike the petitioner, there is no basis of the claim by the so called another lady.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision, rendered by this Court in the case of Sri Narayan Pandey v. State of Jharkhand & ors.,2009 4 JCR 522 and has submitted that once the name of the petitioner is already reflected in the nomination form for provident fund amount and in the service book, the petitioner must be paid retirement benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & ors., 2000 2 SCC 431, especially paragraph no. 13 thereof and submitted that if nobody's name is mentioned in the nomination form, then the claim of other person can be inquired into by the State, but, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, name of the present petitioner as well as her daughter has been mentioned as a nominee in the service book and the name of the petitioner is already mentioned as the legal heir of the deceased employee in the general provident fund nomination form and, therefore, the amount towards death-cum-retiral benefit may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that there is claim, made by another lady, namely, Shilo Devi, who has given application at Annexure B to the counter affidavit and, therefore, let the claim be decided by the concerned trial court where Shilo Devi has already preferred succession application. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondent-State has relied upon Appendix 5 to Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and submitted that as per Clause 12(iii) of the Rules, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to satisfy the Head of the Department that she is the widow and prove her identity by producing the relevant documents. Where no record is available the claimant can be asked to produce of the following documents: