IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9161 of 2011 ====================================================== Uday Kumar Sharma aged about 41 years, S/O Late Kedar Nath Sharma (Ex-Lineman Electric Supply Sub-Division Bansoi, Katihar), R/O Village/Mohalla- Madhrapur, P.O.- Madhurapur, P.S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali. .... Appellant....Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Koshi Electric Supply Area, Saharsa. 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Purnea. 5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Katihar. 6. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. .... Respondents.... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ramnandan Kumar Sinha with Mr. Nilesh Kumar Nirala, Advocates For the Respondent-B.S.E.B. : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 08-11-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th June 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No.9161 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Patna High Court LPA No.1544 of 2011 (3) dt.08-11-2011 2 / 3 2 The appellant is the son of one late Kedar Nath Sharma. The said Kedar Nath Sharma, while on duty under the Bihar State Electricity Board, met with an accident and died on 4th December 1987. Pursuant to his death, his widow was paid Rs.27,000/- on 17th June 1988 under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed CWJC No.368 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to the appellant, compensation paid to the bereaved family was inadequate. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellant to make representation before the concerned authority. The said representation was rejected on 11th August 2010. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the above writ petition. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Hence, this Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Kumar Sinha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that apart from inadequacy of the compensation paid under the Act, the appellant had also demanded the family pension and the amount of G.P.F. According to the appellant, widow of the deceased was entitled to family pension and the G.P.F. amount was not paid with statutory interest. We see no substance in this Appeal. Patna High Court LPA No.1544 of 2011 (3) dt.08-11-2011 3 / 3 3 First, if the compensation were not adequate, the family of the deceased had adequate remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The claim could not have been raised twenty years after the death of the deceased under Article 226 of the Constitution. With regard to family pension and G.P.F. amount, we must note that the widow of the deceased who was entitled to family pension, in her life time never made any grievance or demand in respect of the family pension. After her death the appellant could not have raised demand of family pension. Such a demand, if made, is without the authority of law. Besides, in the earlier writ petition in 2006, the appellant did not raise the demand for family pension or the G.P.F. amount. In respect of the amount of G.P.F., a vague statement is made without supporting materials. In our view the grievance made by the appellant is misconceived and imaginary. Appeal is dismissed in limine. B. Tiwary/Anjani/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)