← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/17413/2012disposed

Lalmati Devi v. The Union Of India And ORS

2016-05-11Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17413 of 2012 ===========================================================

1. Lalmati Devi Widow Of Late Ramdeo Prasad Resident Of Village- Ugo, Police Station- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan, Pin- 841508 .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through Secretary, Industries Department, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.

2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Road No. 6, R- Block, Patna

3. Steel Authority Of India Limited, Central Marketing Organisation Through Deputy General Manager, 1spat Bhawan, 40, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata

4. Assistant General Manager, Steel Authority Of India, Limited Ispat Bhawan, 40 Jawaharlal, Nehru Road, Kolkatta.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad Mr Nilanjan Chatterjee Mr Prashant Sinha =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-05-2016 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent authorities.

If the position and the fact is not disputed that husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1995 then it is not much she can expect from the respondent authorities by way of a claim because dismissal will amount to forfeiture of benefits like pension and other allowances.

However, the Court is informed that the respondent authority has already made payment to the petitioner with regard to

Patna High Court CWJC No.17413 of 2012 dt.11-05-2016 2/2 the contributory provident fund deposited by the husband of the petitioner while he was in service and nothing else in terms of benefits is obligatory upon the respondents.

Counsel representing the petitioner does confirm that some payments have accrued.

If that be so, if the petitioner feels that there is some discrepancy in the payment and the accounting, she always can approach the authorities for any clarification with regard to such issue with supporting material.

Writ application stands disposed of in terms of the above.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 11.5.2016 Transmission Date