Dismissed

Smt Murchhi Devi v. C C L

Jharkhand HC7 Jun 2022WPC/4375/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the grant of family pension, gratuity, and compassionate appointment to Respondent No. 7 and her son, claiming to be the true wife. The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding marital status cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

None; petition disposed of with directions to determine status in civil/appropriate court.

Smt Murchhi Devi Vs C C L — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 4375 of 2012

¶3

Smt Murchhi Devi, widow of Late Gulab Chandra Bhuia, ExTrammer of Churi Colliery Rajhara, Daltonganj, Central Coalfields Ltd., Daltonganj and resident of village and Post Chechha, P.S. Barwadih, District Latehar, Jharkhand … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

(1) Central Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Darbhanga House at Kanke Road, P.O. Sadar, PS. Kotwali, Ranchi.

¶6

(2) Project Officer, Churi Project, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Ray, District Ranchi.

¶7

(3) Chief Manager (Mining)/P.O. Churi Colliery at and P.O. Rajhara, Daltonganj, District Palamau

¶8

(4) Assistant Commissioner-1, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-1, Ranchi RIADA Building, 4^th Floor Post – Namkum, District Ranchi.

¶9

(5) Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, E-191, SectorII, HEC Colony, P.O. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Ranchi.

¶10

(6) Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Bhawan, Jagjiwan Nagar, Dhanbad- 826003.

¶11

(7) Smt. Rajoia Devi claiming herself as wife of Late Gulab Chandra Bhuia, resident of village Horilong, P.O. Chhecha, P.S. Barwadih, District Latehar, Jharkhand

¶12

… … Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶15

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp. No. 7 : Mr. Sandip Verma, Advocate ---

¶16

07 /07.06.2022 Heard Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

2. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4- C.M.P.F.

¶18

3. Heard Mr. Sandip Verma, A.C. to Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7.

¶19

4. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

¶20

5. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶21

“(A) Rule Nisi for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing and commanding upon the Respondents concerned to immediately and forthwith make payment of Provident Fund amount which is

¶22

¶23

accrued in favour of petitioner late husband Late Gulab Chandra Bhuia, Ex-Trammer, Churi Colliery, C.C.L. on account of fact that as per Declaration Form “A” submitted before CMPF Commissioner, Ranchi by the Hutar Colliery Management on 15.02.1974 petitioner is the nominee for getting/payment of P.F. amount alongwith interest accrued on the said P.F. amount AND To pay family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of death i.e. 25.02.2009 of petitioner late husband till date and thereafter monthwise.

¶24

(B) For issuance of Writ/Order/Direction directing upon Respondents Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, Dhanbad to dispose of the Appeal filed by petitioner under payment of Gratuity Act against the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by RLC, Ranchi in P.G. Application No. 36(34)/2011-RLC(C).

¶25

(C)For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the appointment letter issued to Sukur Bhuiya @ Birendra Kumar on a compassionate ground by the C.C.L., Ranchi on account of death of Late Gulab Chandra Bhuia and claimed himself as son born out of wedlock of Rajoia Devi and Gulab Chandra Bhuia and Respondent C.C.L. may be directed to produce original copy of appointment letter of Sukur Bhuiya @ Birendra Kumar before this Hon’ble Court and furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner as Sukur Bhuiya has obtained job by playing fraud and misrepresentation before C.C.L. authorities.

¶26

(D) Any other appropriate writ/writs be issued order/orders be passed, Direction/Directions be made as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prayer has been made by the petitioner claiming herself to be the wife of Late Gulab Chandra Bhuia who was an employee of C.C.L. on the basis of declaration form –‘A’ submitted before C.M.P.F. Commissioner, Ranchi by Hutar Colliery Management as back as on 15.02.1974, according to which the petitioner was the nominee for getting payment of P.F. amount, but the respondent- C.C.L. has granted compassionate appointment to Sukur Bhuiya @ Birendra Kumar S/o the private respondent no. 7. The learned counsel submits that such compassionate appointment has been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.

¶28

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that vide Interlocutory Application No. 121 of 2013, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 28.09.2012 passed by

¶29

¶30

the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad and appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 wherein the appeal has been dismissed and a direction has been made for payment of gratuity to the private respondent no. 7 and the case has been decided against the present petitioner. He submits that the Interlocutory Application No. 121 of 2013 has been allowed vide order dated 21.02.2022.

¶31

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact, the petitioner is the actual wife of Late Gulab Chandra Bhuia and the private respondent Smt. Rajoia Devi is an imposter and therefore, the order passed under the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act in favour of private respondent no. 7 as well as the order of compassionate appointment granted by respondent- C.C.L. to son of private respondent no. 7 calls for interference by this Court. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid orders passed by the authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the order of compassionate appointment granted to the son of the respondent no. 7 be set-aside and the post-death benefits and other benefits arising out of death of her husband Late Gulab Chandra Bhuia be conferred upon the present petitioner.

¶32

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has submitted that the orders passed by the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are well-reasoned orders and after examining the various records, the son of respondent no. 7 has been granted compassionate appointment by the respondent- C.C.L., but the son of the private respondent no. 7 has not been made a party in the present proceedings. He also submits that the impugned order passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is essentially based on facts and such rival disputed claim of the petitioner cannot be decided by this Court under writ jurisdiction.

¶33

10. The learned counsel further submits that without admitting the claim of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner, at best, has a remedy before civil court where the petitioner may get her status declared. He submits that the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this court in writ jurisdiction.

¶34

¶35

11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has referred to the counter-affidavit and has submitted that the claim for provident fund of deceased member received in the name of private respondent no. 7 was duly forwarded by the colliery management, but as per the scheme, it is to be paid to the nominee Smt Murchhi Devi as per declaration Form –‘A’ submitted by the member during his lifetime. He also referred to paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit to submit that in terms of paragraph 64(i) of Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, 1948, the CMPF accumulation is payable as per nomination and in this connection, a letter was issued to C.C.L. dated 19.04.2012, but no response has been received on the same. As no response has been received from C.C.L., no payment as such has been made to the petitioner or to the private respondent.

¶36

12. Thus, from the arguments of the respondent no. 4, it appears that there is conflict with regard to the entitlement between Rajoia Devi –respondent no. 7 and Smt Murchhi Devi- the present petitioner, which required clarification from the C.C.L. which is still awaited as per the counter-affidavit.

¶37

13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that essentially there is a dispute between the status of the petitioner and that of the private respondent no. 7 as to who is the wife of the Late Gulab Chandra Bhuia, ex-employee of C.C.L.

¶38

14. It further appears that the son of the respondent no. 7 has also been given compassionate appointment by respondent- C.C.L., but he is not a party before this Court. This Court also finds that the authorities under the payment of Gratuity Act had scrutinized certain factual aspect and had passed orders in favour of private respondent no. 7 regarding payment of Gratuity. However, in this writ petition again a dispute has been raised with regards to the entitlement of the petitioner and the private respondent no. 7 and such disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

15. In such circumstances, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted in writ jurisdiction. However, it will be open to the petitioner to get her status duly decided in accordance with law in

¶40

¶41

appropriate proceedings before appropriate authority/court of law and all consequences pursuant to such declaration shall follow.

¶42

16. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶43

17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶44

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶45

Pankaj

Smt Murchhi Devi v. C C L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Murchhi Devi v. C C L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mina Kumari Sah Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand Prant Anaupcharik Shiksha Anudeshak Sangh Represented through Its President Umesh Mahtha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Dr Balmukund Singh Vs Human Resource Development

Shiv Shankar Ram Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Lallan Dass Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Dhaneshwari Devi Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director