Patna High CourtCWJC/4710/2016dismissed

Leela Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-09-09Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4710 of 2016 ====================================================== Leela Devi, wife of Late Mritunjay Kumar, Resident of 47, M.I.G., Kankarbag Colony, P.O. and P.S. Kankarbag, Town and District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Inspector General (Prison), Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Director (Probation), Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The District Probation Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif, District - Nalanda at Biharsharif.

6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif, District - Nalanda at Biharsharif.

7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna

8. Smt. Pinki Kumari, wife of not known to the petitioner, Presently residing in the house of Nanhak Singh, situated in Gali No. 8, Chandmari Road, P.O. and P.S. Kankarbag, Town and District - Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.S.B.K. Manglam, Adv. Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv.

For the Respondent nos.1to6 : Mr. Nagendra Pd. Yadav, SC-23 Mr.Sudhir Kumar Singh, AC to SC-23 For the Respondent no.7 : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-09-2016 Heard.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order/communication dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent no.5, whereby the petitioner as also the respondent no.8 have been directed to produce succession certificate for payment of pensionary benefits of the deceased employee. Apparently, there appears to be a serious dispute between the petitioner at one hand and the respondent no.8 on the other hand, as both of them are claiming to be the widow of the deceased employee. In above view of the matter, the respondent

Patna High Court CWJC No.4710 of 2016 (2) dt.09-09-2016 no.5 has rightly directed the petitioner and the respondent no.8 to produce succession certificate, so that the payment of pensionary benefits of the deceased employee could be made. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be legally faulted.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, once a succession certificate is produced either by the petitioner, or by the respondent no.8, pensionary benefits of the deceased employee shall be paid without any unnecessary delay.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U