In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(S) No.2436 of 2006
Rusu Oraon and others.......................Petitioners
VERSUS
H.E.C and others............................ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioners : Mr.Binod Kumar
For the H.E.C : Mr. A.K.Mishra
For the Respondents 5 to 7: Mr.Arwind Kumar
11/ 12.7.11
.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned
counsel appearing for the H.E.C and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 5 to 7.
The petitioner no.1, father of 2nd wife of the deceased employee,
late Lakhwa Oraon and also petitioners 2 and 3, daughters of 2nd wife
of the deceased employee, late Lakhwa Oraon, had come to this Court
for direction to the respondent-H.E.C to make payment atleast of 50%
of the death-cum-retiral benefit which was admissible to the deceased
employee who died in course of service. The petitioners when put forth
their claims for payment of death-cum-retiral benefit before the
authority of H.E.C, it was denied on the plea that the same would be
paid on production of succession certificate which action is quite illegal.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7 submits
that the respondents 5 to 7 being the daughter and sons of the 1st wife
of the deceased employee in whose favour succession certificate has
been granted are entitled to get death-cum-retiral benefit due to be paid
to the deceased employee, still when they approached before the
authority of the H.E.C, they were asked to bring succession certificate
and on production of the succession certificate, some of the payments
have been made.
Learned counsel appearing for the H.E.C also submits that since
there was a dispute as to who would be entitled to have death-cum-
retiral benefit, both the persons were asked to bring succession
certificate and when the succession certificate was produced by
respondents 5 to 7, some of the payments have been made and under
this situation, the petitioners are not entitled to get death-cum-retiral
benefit.
Having heard counsel for the parties, it does appear that the
respondents 5 to 7 are either sons or the daughter of the 1 st wife of the
deceased employee whereas petitioners 2 and 3 are the daughters of
2nd wife of the deceased employee and the petitioner no.1 is the father
of the 2nd wife of the deceased employee and that in order to claim
death-cum-retiral benefit, succession certificate was produced on
behalf of the respondents 5 to 7 whereas petitioners have failed to
show their entitlement to receive death-cum-retiral benefit due to be
paid to the deceased employee.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence,
this application is dismissed.
(R.R.Prasad, J.)
ND/