CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1996) 02 SC CK 0245

State of Bihar and Others vs Chhangur Prasad Seth

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 5 February 1996 · Citation: (1996) 2 AD 241 : (1996) 2 JT 294 : (1996) 2 LLJ 261 : (1996) 2 SCALE 217(1) : (1996) 2 SCALE 217 : (1996) 7 SCC 667 : (1996) 2 SCR 139

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · G. B. Pattanaik, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 3364 of 1996

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 265 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna made on November 11, 1993 in CWJC No. 13107/92. Admittedly one Shyam Devi was a teacher who died on August 17, 1988. She nominated certain persons to be entitled to receive the G.P.F. etc. on her behalf. It would appear that three persons laid the claim which was accordingly made over. When the respondent claimed to be son of a brother of the deceased, he was asked for the succession certificate. By the time he produced the certificate, the amount had already been paid to the claimants. Therefore, the respondent filed a writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed to make the payment to him. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3.

In view of the fact that the State had discharged the liability in terms of the nomination by the deceased teacher, the inter se claim if any, have to be adjudicated only on the regular constituted forum and the State cannot be compelled to pay twice over on the succession certificate produced by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the direction issued by the High Court is clearly illegal.

4.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set as to. If any other claim is to be discharged, the same may be done in accordance with la. This order does not preclude the responded, to take action according to law.