Dismissed

Kalyani Devi v. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited through the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC23 Apr 2024WPC/76/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought mandamus to be recorded as nominee in her employee-husband's service book with the coal company, relying on a maintenance order in her favour. The court held that nomination is the employee's prerogative and a maintenance order gives only a prima facie declaration of marriage; relief refused.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kalyani Devi Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited… — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 76 of 2023

¶3

Kalyani Devi aged about 55 years wife of Hari Thakur resident of Bhuli Basti, P.O. Bhuli P.S. Bankmore (Bhuli.O.P.), District Dhanbad. --- Petitioner.

¶4

Versus-

¶5

M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through the Chairman-CumManaging Director having his office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nager P.O.P.S. & District- Dhanbad.

¶6

The Director Personnel of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nager P.O.P.S. & District- Dhanbad, 3. The Project Officer, Munidih Colliery of M / s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Munidih & P.S.-Putki, District Dhanbad.

¶7

Hari Thakur E.No. 02451409 son of Late Jawari Napit resident of Karitand, P.O., P.S. Putki, District-Dhanbad.

¶8

… … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent-4 : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the BCCL : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate

¶12

¶13

09 /23.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶14

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “ For a writ/order/direction upon the respondents to introduce the name of the petitioner as the nominee in the service book of her husband namely Hari Thakur who is regular employee under the Respondent.”

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of the ex-employee namely Hari Thakur of respondent no. 1 who has been made respondent no. 4 in the present case. He submits that the respondent no. 4 having not made the petitioner as nominee in the records of the company, the present writ petition has been filed. He has also submitted that an order of maintenance was passed in favour of the petitioner under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the respondent company has been remitting the amount to the petitioner in terms of the order of maintenance and therefore there is no doubt that the petitioner is the wife of respondent no. 4 and is entitled to be made as nominee in the service book of the respondent no. 4 so that the

¶16

future of the petitioner is secured. He submits that in case of death of respondent no. 4, the petitioner would be entitled for family pension also.

¶17

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent company has submitted that the petitioner claims to have married the respondent no. 4 way back in the year 1982 and the respondent no. 4 entered in service in 1987 and there is no declaration by respondent no. 4 with regard to the petitioner, rather the name of one Chanchala Devi was entered and she has died. She submits that the respondent company has honored the various orders of maintenance, but as of now, the respondent no. 4 is not in service and the petitioner cannot force the respondent company to enter the name of the petitioner as nominee in the service book. It is the prerogative of the respondent no. 4 as to who he would declare his nominee. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as family pension is concerned, the same would be payable only if the petitioner produces a succession certificate and the order of maintenance by itself cannot be a ground to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner.

¶18

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the view that although an order of maintenance has been passed in favour of the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 to 3 have been duly complying with the order of maintenance, the same cannot be a ground to direct the respondents to declare the petitioner as nominee in the service book of the respondent no. 4. The representation which has been filed by the petitioner before the respondent company indicates that she claims to be the first wife of the respondent no. 4 on the basis of the order passed in the maintenance case and has claimed that marriage was solemnized as back as in the year 1982 but the respondent no. 4 never declared the petitioner as his wife in the records of the company. Otherwise also as to who would be nominee is the prerogative of the employee and no such mandamus can be

¶19

¶20

Binit

¶21

issued by this court as prayed for in this writ petition. This court is of the considered view that merely on account of an order passed in the maintenance case no such conclusive declaration can be granted by this court that petitioner is the wife of respondent no. 4. The law is well settled that the proceedings in maintenance case only gives prima facie declaration and no more.

¶22

7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶23

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶24

Kalyani Devi v. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited through the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kalyani Devi v. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited through the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nishi Kant Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Rajani Kant Tripathi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Om Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Puja Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand