IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2827 of 2005 ============================================= Most.Sheela Devi, w/o- Late Satya Narayan Prasad, r/o- village Janpara, P.O.- Barah, P.S.- Rani Talab, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman/MD, ,G-9, Aliyavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. 2. The Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. P.O.- Barauni Oil Refinery, District- Begusarai. 3. Trustees, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund, Scope Complex, Core -2, 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 4. Accounts Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund, Scope Complex, Core -2, 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 5. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Pension and Group Scheme Division, divisional Office-1, 7th Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25 kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-1. 6. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, s/o- Late Harishankar Prasad. 7. Murari Prasad, s/o- Late Harishankar Prasad, Both residents of village Janpara, P.O.- Barah, District- Patna .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s None For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.N.Gupta Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad Mr. Satyendra Krishna Prasad Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh (for L.I.C.) ============================================= 5 15-10-2011 No body appears on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Mr. Gupta for the respondent Indian Oil Corporation (I.O.C.) and Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh for respondent L.I.C. are present. Petitioner seeks following reliefs as would appear from paragraph No. 1: “That the instant writ application is being filed inter alia praying for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) and or direction(s) upon the respondents for the following reliefs: 2 (i) For quashing of annexure-7 through which bona fide claim of the petitioner has been rejected out rightly. (ii) For direction to pay the petitioner her share of the principal annuity amount left with the respondents upon the death of the member annuitant of his master policy no. GA 47418. (iii) For direction to pay the petitioner the statutory interest accruing thereupon on the amount claimed. (iv) Any other relief(s) as deem fit and proper. Learned counsel for the respondent I.O.C. states that Annexure-7 is a reply to the notice given by the Advocate. With regard to the prayer incorporated in (ii) above, it is submitted that petitioner has not been nominated by the deceased employee and as such it is difficult for the respondent I.O.C. to grant the relief prayed for in the application. Learned counsel for the respondent I.O.C. states that if the family of the petitioner come to a settlement and approach the respondents, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. This Court, having noticed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respondent I.O.C. as well as L.I.C., disposes of the application in the aforesaid manner. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)