Rusu Oraon and Others vs H.E.C. and Others

R.R. Prasad, J.—By the Court.--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 1st 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.