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 30.4.2011 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-retrial 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 dated 6.8.2012, 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 20.2.1979 and the judgment passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gaya, Annexure-2 dated 27.8.1981 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-employer BCCL has submitted that the deceased-employee had given the name of the private respondent as the legally married wife and nominated her in Form-F for receiving gratuity payment in year 1979 itself. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL has submitted that considering her claim, the payment of gratuity and leave encashment etc. has been made to her by the respondents. After payment, the present petitioner has represented through legal notice disclosing alleged act of marriage with the deceased employee. It is submitted that the son of the private respondent also applied for compassionate appointment, who has not been made party in the present writ petition. Therefore, it has submitted that her proper remedy would be to approach before the competent Court of law for a declaration of her status and redressal of her grievances.