IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.102 of 2006 SMT.MANTI DEVI Versus VIJAY KUMAR YADAV ----------- For Appellant :- Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sushanta Kumar Das, Adv. For Pvt. Respondent :- Mr. Ratan Das, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. For Railways :- Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv. 15 22.5.2009 Heard counsel for the appellant and contesting respondents as also counsel for the Railways. Reference may be taken to the earlier orders of this Court dated 12.5.2009 and 20.5.2009 respectively. Pursuant there to all the parties have also appeared in person and have been individually heard. It now appears that good senses have prevailed upon the parties and they have ultimately patched up all their differences by entering into a mutually consented compromise. This will be also borne out from the compromise petition filed today duly signed and affidavited by all the parties. For the sake of clarity, the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise petition is reproduced hereinbelow:- ^^1& ;g fd vihydRrkZ] Jherh ekurh nsoh lHkh fooknksa dks Hkqydj vius ifjokj esa ykSV vk,xh rFkk lHkh foi{kx.k la[;k 1 ls 4 tks muds iq=&iq=h rFkk lkl gS] ds lkFk fuokl LFkku jksrkM+k ftyk &dfVgkj esa jgsxhA 2 2& ;g fd foi{kh la[;k& ,d ls pkj ¼1 ls 4½ vihydRrkZ] ekurh nsoh dks ifjokj esa bTtr ls j[ksaxs vkSj ekurh nsoh Hkh lHkh foi{kh x.kksa dk [;ky j[krs gq, fdlh rjg dk okn&fookn ugha [kM+k djsaxhA bl rjg ifjokj ds lHkh lnL; vihy dRrkZ foi{kh la[;k&,d ls pkj “kkafriwoZd ,d lkFk vius ?kj esa fuokl djsaxsA ,oa Hkfo’; esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ dsl ugha djsaxsA 3& ;g fd vihydRrkZ ekurh nsoh dks vius ifr nso ukjk;.k ds e`R;w mijkUr tks ikfjokfjd isa”ku feysxk mls vihydRrkZ vius rFkk ifjokj ds fgr esa tks mfpr le>sxh [kpZ djsxh rFkk ml ij vU; lnL;ksa dk tks foi{khx.k gSa dksbZ ncko ugha jgsxkA 4& ;g fd foi{kh& 1 Jh fot; dqekj ;kno tks vihydRrkZ] ekurh nsoh ds izFke iq= gSa dks Lo0 nso ukjk;.k ds dk;Z&dky esa e`R;q mijkUr vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij jsyos ls ukSdjh ysus dk vf/kdkj gksxk rFkk ml ij vihydRrkZ rFkk vU; foi{kh la[;k& 2 ls 4 dk dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxkA 5& ;g fd foi{kh la[;k&1 Jh fot; dqekj ;kno dks jsyos }kjk vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij ukSdjh gksus ds i”pkr osru ls lHkh ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dk Hkj.k&iks’k.k pyk,saxsA ,slk ugha djus ij vU; lnL; x.k foi{kh la[;k&1 ds f[kykQ mfpr dk;ZokbZ ds fy, f”kdk;r dj ldsaxsA ftl ij mldh ukSdjh Hkh tk ldrh gSA 6& ;g fd vihy dRrkZ rFkk foi{kh la[;k& 1 ls 4 ds chp bl vihy ds vykos tks Hkh fnokuh ;k QkStnkjh fookn mRiUu gq, gSaA mlds dkjZokbZ dks lekIr djus ds fy, mfpr dne ysaxsA ,oa ukSdjh dRrkZ vius [kpZ ls vihy dRrkZ dks lkFk ysdj lqyg ukek nsaxsA ,oa le;&lhek ds vUnj djsaxsA 7& ;g fd foi{kh la[;k 1 Jh fot; dqekj ;kno foi{kh la[;k&4 dkS”kY;k dqekjh ds “kknh dk lkjk [kpZ ogu djsaxsA vU;Fkk mudh ukSdjh tk;sxh rFkk vihydRrkZ Jherh ekurh nsoh dks vius ifjokfjd isa”ku ls tks cu ik;sxk enn djsaxsA 8& ;g fd cq/kuh nsoh ds uke ls tks tehu ftl ij lkjk ifjokj jg jgs gSa orZeku esa ml tehu esa vihy dRrkZ ekurh nsoh dk cjkcj dk fgLlk jgsxkA mls u rks fdlh dks nku ns ldrh gS u csp ldrh gSA 9& ;g fd cdk;k isa”ku dk iSlk tks ekpZ 2004 ls ckdh gS] mls vihydRrkZ ekurh nsoh ¼vkosfndk½ dks fn;k tk;A bl ij fdlh dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxhA dkj.k foxr 5 c’kksZa ls dtZ ysdj xqtkjk dh gSA** From the aforementioned terms and conditions incorporated in the compromise petition it would be clear that the parties 3 now have found solace in believing and respecting each other. In the opinion of this Court, such terms and conditions of compromise in fact would be in the interest of justice and the family members of the deceased Deo Narayan who has left behind his old widow mother, two adult sons and a minor daughter apart from the appellant-wife. Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, counsel for the Railways would inform this Court that almost all the retiral benefit has already been made to the appellant-wife and now only some arrears of family pension from the month of April, 2004 onwards is payable to the appellant-wife. As indicated in the terms and conditions, since the family pension is exclusively to be shared and enjoyed by the appellant alone, this Court would find that the appellant would receive the substantive amount over a sum of rupees one lac. As the daughter is aged about 14 years only, the appellant-wife has volunteered to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of her daughter which will be kept in a joint fixed deposit in any nationalized bank or post- office and will not be withdrawn by the 4 appellant-wife till the marriage of her daughter, namely, Kaushalya Kumari. Such amount, in fact, will be spent in the interest of Kaushalya Kumari in her marriage. The balance amount of the arrears of family pension will of-course be used by the appellant-wife as per her own wishes and the future amount of family pension from the month of June 2009 onwards shall be paid to the appellant-wife by the Railways without there being any hindrance from any person and notwithstanding any judgment of any Court on this issue. Since the parties have agreed that the appointment on compassionate ground due to death of Deo Narayan in harness will be given to the eldest son, namely, Vijay Kumar Yadav, the authorities of the Railways hereby is directed to also make sure that the appointment of Vijay Kumar Yadav is made within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In order to secure the interest and safeguard in future of the daughter, namely, Kaushalya Kumari, this Court would not only direct for depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the amount payable to the appellant in a 5 fixed deposit for six years in a nationalized bank or post office in the joint name of the appellant Smt. Manti Devi and Kaushalya Kumari but would also direct the Railways to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,000/- at source from the salary of Vijay Kumar Yadav and keep on depositing the same in a recurring deposit in a nationalized bank/post-office jointly in the name of Vijay Kumar Yadav and Kaushalaya Kumari for a period of six years and this amount again will not be withdrawn by any person including Vijay Kumar Yadav till the marriage of the Kaushalya Kumari, the daughter of late Deo Narayan. After the marriage of Kaushalya Kumari, the Railways will stop deducting of Rs. 1,000/- from the salary of Vijay Kumar Yadav but then as already undertaken by him, he will keep on maintaining the old grand-mother, his mother and as also his younger brother and sister from his salary till their marriage and if any one of them would lead any evidence before the competent authority of the Railway that they are not maintained properly or are neglected, the Railways would be at liberty to terminate the services of Vijay Kumar Yadav after of-course complying the principles of natural justice. 6 The appellant-wife as agreed amongst the parties now would go back to her family and reside with his sons and daughter and it has been assured by all of them namely, the grand- mother, two sons and daughter that she will be given her due respect and therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to also direct all the concerned courts where any criminal case(s) has been filed by one party against another, to drop them on filing of a joint compromise petition along with a copy of this order. If any civil proceedings have been initiated by the parties against each other pertaining to the property or rights of late Deo Narayan, the same shall also be now also withdrawn by the concerned parties as each and every aspect even pertaining to the properties of Deo Narayan whether movable or immovable, including the pensionary rights have been made part of the compromise petition. Such compromise petition and their terms and conditions are made Rule of the Court and if there be any non-compliance of the terms and conditions of such compromise petition as extracted and quoted above in this order or aforementioned direction given by this Court 7 by any of the party the same would be treated to be violation of the order of this Court and such party would become directly liable for being proceeded under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The order of the court below is set aside and the succession case filed by Vijay Kumar Yadav is hereby dismissed. The personal appearance of all the parties is hereby exempted. However, liberty is given to any of the parties to the compromise petition to file any application before this Court for appropriate direction and/or modification if such an occasion would arise. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)