SUSHILA DEVI Vs. BCCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, the present petitioner claims herself to be the legally married wife of late Suresh Lal, Hazri Clerk, who died in harness on 30.04.2011 while in service under the respondent -BCCL. She had earlier approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4144 of 2012 seeking payment of death -cum -retiral benefit of the deceased employee. The said writ petition was disposed of without getting into the merit of the petitioner's claim, directing the respondent -employer to take a decision on her representation within stipulated time vide judgment date 06.08.2012, Annexure -13. Thereafter, the impugned order rejecting her claim has been passed on 17/29.11.2012, Annexure -15 inter alia also asking her to establish her identity as legally married wife of late Suresh Lal through proper process of law whereupon she may obtain the provident fund benefit of the deceased employee and if so desired may make recovery of the amount obtained by Smt. Rekha Devi.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed in proceeding under 125 Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner for claiming maintenance, which was allowed in her favour. The said order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah on 20.02.1979 and the judgment passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gaya, Annexure -2 dated 27.08.1981 in criminal revision being Cr. Rev. No. 136 of 1979 preferred by Suresh Lal against her is also on record. It is submitted that the deceased never disputed the status of the present petitioner as his legally married wife and the respondent -employer is, therefore, not justified in refusing her claim for admissible death -cum -retiral benefit of the deceased employee.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 5, Rekha Devi has also disputed the claim of the present petitioner. According to her, in the service book of the deceased employee, the name of the seven persons including the private respondent as wife and Bikash Kumar Sinha as son have been shown, who was nominated for the payment of the provident fund. Gratuity, life cover scheme and family pension as per law. The present petitioner has appeared suddenly for the said claim. On the earlier occasion she has filed the writ petition without impleading the present private respondents, who was a necessary party. In such circumstances, the impugned order, rejecting her claim, is therefore, wholly justified in the eyes of law. The present petitioner does not have any valid ground to seek admissible retiral benefit of the deceased -employee. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. The claim of the petitioner is largely based upon the order passed in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are primarily for consideration of payment of maintenance to the lady, who claims herself to be the wife. The observation made or findings recorded therein are only prima facie in nature and cannot be considered in the form of adjudication/declaration of the status of the present petitioner claiming as wife seeking such maintenance. On the contrary, in the service records of the deceased employee, without doubt the name of private respondent, Rekha Devi was entered and nominated in the gratuity form prepared in the year 1979 itself. It also appears that the son born out of Rekha Devi has made the claim for compassionate appointment whose name was reflected in the service book of the deceased employee. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the respondents have correctly decided the representation of the petitioner as no conclusive documents showing herself to be legally married wife of the deceased -employee could be evidenced before the respondent. The record maintained by the employer on the contrary showed the private respondent as legally married wife in whose favour the benefit of admissible provident fund and gratuity have been released. The petitioner has rightly been advised to seek remedy before the competent Court on the disputed question of facts to be determined relating to the status of the petitioner as legally married wife of the late Suresh Lal. I do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.