Sharda Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:190

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2367 of 2023

¶6

VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶7

Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶8

1 - Sharda Bai Wd/o Late Pitamber Lal Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Jhirmitti, P.S. Udaypur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.), Presently R/o Village Ratanpur Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Executive Engineer Thermal Power Project Division, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Sarguja Division, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Smt. Mina Dhimer Wd/o Late Pitamber Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Rampur, P.S. Rampur, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Smt. Chandrama D/o Late Pitamber Lal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Rampur, P.S. Rampur, Distt.- Korba (C.G.)

¶16

6 - Sub - Divisional Officer Thermal Power Project, Sub-Division Udaypur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.)

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶19

2

¶20

For Petitioner :- Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For State :- Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L. For Respondents No. 4 & 5 :- Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate

¶21

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶22

Order On Board

¶23

02.01.2026

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claims to be the first wife of the deceased employee, late Pitambar Lal, who was working in the Thermal Power Project Division, Udaipur, District Surguja. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5 is claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Pitambar Lal. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are asserting rival claims of being the legally married wife of the deceased employee. The dispute between the parties pertains to the entitlement of service dues payable on account of the death of late Pitambar Lal as well as the claim for compassionate appointment.

¶25

From the perusal of the record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the controversy involved in the present case relates to disputed questions of fact, particularly with regard to the marital status of the petitioner and respondent No. 5. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶26

3

¶27

Constitution of India, as determination of these issues would require appreciation of evidence.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 are required to approach the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction for adjudication of their respective claims, rights, and status in accordance with law. The parties shall be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings before the competent Civil Court for determination of their entitlement to service benefits of the deceased employee and the claim of compassionate appointment.

¶29

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, and without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of , reserving liberty to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law.

¶30

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by either of the parties.

¶31

sd/-

¶32

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶33

Vishakha

Sharda Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Wahid Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harprasad Dhuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anuradha Jangade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sushila Verma

Prem Kumar Bada Vs Govt. of Chhattisgarh