Seema Kumari Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 1174 of 2023

Seema Kumari, W/o-Late Manoranjan Prasad Singh, Aged About-57 yrs. R/o-Kamala Niwas, Hirapur, Hindu Mission Road, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad, (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority represented through its Managing Director, At-Luby Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. & District-Dhanbad, (Jharkhand).

¶6

The Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, At- Luby Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. & District - Dhanbad, (Jharkhand). … … Respondents

¶7

With

¶8

W.P.(S) No. 613 of 2023

¶9

Kiran Kumari Saw, aged about 39 years, wife of Late Manoranjan Prasad Singh, resident of Maa Kunj Tower, Flat No. 305, Sabalpur Road, Bank Colony, Bhuiphore Mandir, Near K.G. Ashram, P.O. and P.S. - Saraidhella, District Dhanbad.

¶10

Versus

¶11

Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S.- Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad;

¶12

Secretary, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S.- Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad; 3. Accounts Officer, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. - Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. … … Respondents

¶13

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶14

--For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate [ In W.P.(S) No. 1174 of 2023] Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate [ In W.P.(S) No. 613 of 2023] For the Respondents : None ---

¶15

08 /03.04.2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases are present.

¶16

2. W.P.(S) No. 1174 of 2023 has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶17

“For issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) upon the respondents for directing them to immediately pay to the petitioner the death-cum-retiral dues

¶18

of her deceased husband namely Late Manoranjan Prasad Singh such as :-

¶19

(i) Earned Leave Encashment (ii) Provident fund amount with interest rate prevailing time to time. (iii) Gratuity. (iv) Group Insurance Amount calculated @ 12.5% of compound interest. (v) Arrears of benefit of VIth Pay Revision effective from 01.01.2006. (vi) Arrears of the benefit of Merger of 50% D.A. (vii) Arrears of Benefit of Time Bound Promotion/A.C.P. alongwith other legally payable dues. (viii) Arrears of Area Allowance. (ix) Arrears of D.A. (x) Arrears of Interim Relief. (xi) Arrears of benefit of Central Pay Revision effective from 01.01.1996.

¶20

(xii) Arrears of Up to date pay fixation.

¶21

And other admitted dues alongwith 10% interest for delay in payment of above said dues by the respondents whereas the petitioner's husband has died in harness on 29.04.2020.”

¶22

3. W.P.(S) No. 613 of 2023 has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶23

“(a) In the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities to show cause as to why and under what authority the concerned respondents have withheld the death-cumretirement benefits and other dues of the husband of the petitioner who has died in harness on 29.04.2020;

¶24

(b) For a further writ/ order / direction commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities to immediately and forthwith pay the following death cum retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner to the petitioner:-

¶25

(i) Arrears of Salary: (ii) Death cum retiral benefits; (iii) Provident Fund; (iv) Provident Fund with interest on the un-credited amount; (v) Arrears of Dearness Allowances; (vi) Group Insurance with compound interest; (vii) Amount of unused Earned Leave; (viii) Difference amount of revised Pay from 1.1.1996 on account of 5^th Pay Revision; (ix) Difference amount of revised Pay from 1.1.2006 on account of 6^th Pay Revision; (x) Difference amount on account of merger of 50% D.A. in basic pay; (xi) Benefits of Assured Career Progression; (xii) Arrears of regional allowance (from April 1991 to August 1995); (xiii) Arrears of interim assistance (from April 1995 to December 1995); (xiv) Arrears of Dress Allowances; (xv) Amount of increment on account of stagnation of pay; (xvi) Statutory, compensatory and penal interest on the aforementioned amounts; (xvii) Arrears D.A. (from January-1993 to March-1997) and (xviii) Other benefits;

¶26

2

¶27

(c) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) or direction(s) or order(s) in the nature of mandamus upon the concerned authorities to take into consideration the various representations made by the petitioner on account of payment of death cum retiral benefits due to the husband of the petitioner.”

¶28

4. W.P.(S) No. 1174 of 2023 has been filed by one Seema Kumari seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay death -cum-retiral dues of her deceased husband namely Manoranjan Prasad Singh.

¶29

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Manoranjan Prasad Singh expired on 29.04.2020 while he was in service. He also submits that other benefits have also been claimed by the petitioner which was payable to the ex-employee. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had represented before the respondent no. 2 but no order has been passed and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶30

6. So far as W.P.(S) No. 613 of 2023 is concerned, the same has been filed by Kiran Kumari Saw who also claims to be the wife of the ex-employee namely Manoranjan Prasad Singh. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 613 of 2023 that the petitioner also has a minor daughter. He also submits that the claim of minor daughter who is a school going child cannot be denied under any circumstances even if the petitioner is second wife of the deceased Manoranjan Prasad Singh. He has also submitted that the respondent - Mineral Area Development Authority has also passed certain orders wherein children born out of second marriage have been given some benefit arising out of post-death benefits. However, no such order has been annexed along with the writ petition.

¶31

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner in both the cases and their children with regard to post-death benefits is required to be considered at the first instance by the by the Managing Director of Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority who has to take into consideration the facts of the case as per the applicable scheme

¶32

3

¶33

and also consider if any relief can be granted to the minor daughter of the ex-employee born out of second marriage. He has also to examine as to whether any such relief has been granted to similarly situated persons in the past.

¶34

8. When the case is taken up today, neither anybody is appearing on behalf of the respondents nor any counter-affidavit has been filed. 9. The fact remains that the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 613 of 2023 was issued a notice dated 19.11.2023 [ Annexure- 6/1] to appear before the Secretary of Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, who was also examining the claim of Seema Kumari i.e. the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 1174 of 2023.

¶35

10. The Managing Director of Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to both these writ petitioners and pass an appropriate order in connection with their entitlement and/or entitlement of children born to them.

¶36

11. The appropriate decision be taken by the Managing Director of Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to be filed by the petitioners with a copy of the writ records. The decision be communicated to the parties through speed post.

¶37

12. It is for the by the Managing Director of Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law taking into consideration applicable guidelines, rules, etc. which may be applicable to the parties. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merit or otherwise of the claim of the respective parties.

¶38

13. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶39

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

¶40

Pankaj

¶41

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶42

4

Seema Kumari v. the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Kumari v. the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Singh Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Managing Director

Raghuraj Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Gita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kiran Kumari Saw Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Reeta Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Deptt

Babli Kumari Represented through Her Grandfather Upendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand