IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5216 of 2008 Deepti Pandey , Daughter of Late Manju Jaiswal @ Manju Kumari Jaiswal, C/O Sri Vidya Nand Tiwari, resident of Mohalla- Yogia Toli(Yarpur), Post Office- G.P.O. , Patna, Police Station-Gardanibag, District-Patna --------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. The Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council, Patna 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna ---------------------- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 03 20-09-2011 Heard Sri Kumar Brijendra Nath, who was assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 2 to 4/ Bihar Legislative Council and Sri Ramkinkar Choubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.5/ Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. None appeared on behalf of Respondent no.1/ State. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Respondent no.4/ Dy. Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council, Patna. It has further been prayed to direct the Respondents to pay the death-cum- retiral benefit of Late Manju Jaiswal @ Manju Kumari Jaiswal to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of one Arun Kumar Pandey and Smt. Surya Prabha Pandey , who were her natural guardian .The petitioner has claimed that she was adopted by Manju Jaiswal, who was Assistant in the Bihar Legislative Council,Patna and she died on 05.08.2006 while in 2 service. The petitioner has claimed that she was adopted by Manju Jaiswal , while she was only typist in the Bihar Legislative Council . After the death of the employee, the petitioner being her adopted daughter applied for payment of death-cum- retiral dues. However, the Respondent no.4/ Dy. Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council instead of granting the benefit vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition has directed the petitioner to produce succession certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the enclosures of Annexure-3 to the petition, particularly at page-19. It was submitted that the deceased employee had nominated the petitioner for claiming the amount under the head of group insurance. It has been argued that since the petitioner was made nominee by the deceased employee under the scheme of group insurance, the petitioner was entitled to get at least the amount under the head of group insurance and she is also entitled to get all the death-cum- retiral dues of deceased employee. Accordingly, it has been argued that Annexure-2 was issued without any basis and only with a view to defer the claim of the petitioner regarding death-cum- retiral dues of deceased employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the scheme of group insurance and has prayed that as per the scheme as well as being nominee, the petitioner is entitled to get the amount under the head of group insurance. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 2 to 4. In its counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated that for death-cum- retiral dues at least three 3 claimants had approached the Respondents. The petitioner after the death of the deceased employee had filed an application for death- cum- retiral dues and also for her appointment on compassionate ground. Representation of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. The Respondents has further stated that after the death of the employee , one Shreya Suman had filed an application on 01.09.2006 and had claimed pension, gratuity, group insurance etc. on behalf of the deceased ( Manju Jaiswal @ Manju Kumari Jaiswal. Similarly, the father of the deceased employee, namely, Bashishth Choudhary had also claimed for all death-cum- retiral dues of the deceased employee and, as such, since there was serious dispute regarding the claim of death- cum- retiral dues of the deceased employee, the Respondent no.4 has rightly asked the person concerned to produce succession certificate. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 that in view of the facts and circumstances, particularly number of claimants, the Respondent no.4 has rightly issued Annexure-2 to the petition, which requires no interference. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is true that the nomination paper, which has been brought as enclosure to Annexure-3 to the petition, the petitioner’s name has been mentioned as nominee to the claimed amount under the group insurance scheme. The fact remains that the present writ petition has not been filed only for the purpose for direction to make payment of the amount of group insurance, but the petitioner has claimed for 4 making payment of death-cum- retiral dues of the deceased employee and compassionate appointment. In view of the different claimants, amongst them one of the claimants is none else but own father of the deceased employee, the Court is of the opinion that the Respondent no.4 has rightly asked the parties to produce the succession certificate. Regarding the claim of death-cum- retiral dues of deceased employee by way of exercising writ jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate for this Court to create a situation for generating litigation and disputes. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)