IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.187 of 2006 SITA DEVI (deceased), substituted by – 1. Ramesh Kumar `Raman’ 2. Mahesh Kumar -sons of Late Ram Lakhan Mahto, resident of Village & P O Laufa (Raghunathpur), PS Lakhnour, Distt. Madhubani ….Petitioners Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, Baily Road, Patna, through its Chairman 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board,Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Director, Departmental Proceeding, Bihar State Electricity Board,Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board,Bailey Road, Patna 5. The Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Samastipur 6. The Managing Director-cum-Chief Engineer,Mithila Regional Electricity Board, Darbhanga 7. The Deputy Director, Personal, Mithila Regional Electricity Board, Darbhanga 8. Officer-in-Charge, Town Police Station, Samastipur through theState of Biahr 9. The District Magistrate, Samastipur District, Samastipur ……Opposite Parties ----------- 08- 19.5.2010 Heard Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta for the petitioner, and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh for the respondents. This application has been filed by the petitioner of CWJC No. 5898 of 2000 (Sita Devi vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.), for review and recall of the order dated 29.7.2005, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner’s prayer for payment of family pension was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner, namely, Sita Devi, died on 16.9.2007 leaving behind her two major sons, namely, Ramesh Kumar Raman, and Mahesh Kumar. It is further submitted that IA 2 No.4331 of 2008 under the provision of Order 22, Rule 4, CPC, was filed in the connected MJC No.1801 of 2008, which was an application for restoration of the present civil review no.187 of 2006. The substitution application was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 1.4.2009, passed in MJC No.1801 of 2008. Law is well settled that, if substitution has already taken place in a connected proceeding, then the same shall be carried over to the pending proceeding. In that view of the matter, let the petitioner’s name be expunged, and be substituted by her heirs mentioned in IA No.4331 of 2008 filed in MJC No.1801 of 2008. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this review application may be indicated. Ram Lakhan Mahto (hereinafter referred to as `the employee’), is the husband of the said Sita Devi, and the present petitioners are their sons. The employee was in the services of the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board and was posted as Junior Accounts Clerk. Two departmental proceedings were initiated against him, wherein it was found that he was guilty of embezzlement of Rs.2 lacs, and Rs.4.19 lacs. He thereafter became traceless. According to Sita Devi, the employee died and, therefore, she submitted representation before the Board for release of the post-retirement benefits admissible to the employee and payable to her in the capacity of his widow, as well as payment of family pension. The Board declined to accede to the prayer leading to CWJC 3 No.3357 of 1998 which was disposed of by order dated 3.7.98, whereby the Managing Director-cum-Chief Engineer, Mithila Region, was directed to dispose of the representation of Sita Devi within a period of one month. It appears that this order was not complied with leading to contempt application bearing MJC No.123 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.4.99. It further appears that the orders of this Court had led two parallel investigations by the police as well as the Vigilance Officer of the Board resulting in delay in compliance of the order. The Court in contempt proceeding upheld the Board’s plea that the employee was really not dead and had made himself scarce to avoid the rigors of the departmental proceedings. The contempt application was accordingly rejected. This was followed by the present CWJC No.5898 of 2000, which was dismissed by order dated 29.7.2005, and this Court felt convinced that the employee had played fraud on the Board by playing tricks and by making an effort to establish that the dead- body of a different person was really his dead-body. He had planted his own identity card in the pocket of the dead-body of a different person. Consequently, CWJC No.5898 of 2000 was dismissed by order dated 29.7.2005. Sita Devi challenged the same by preferring LPA No.1038 of 2005, which was disposed of by order dated 19.10.2006, and is reproduced hereinbelow:- “ Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kameshwar Pd. Gupta states that the Circulars dated 9.12.1991 and 24.2.1990 are material and relevant for the determination of issue in focus and by mistake it could not be produced before the learned Single 4 Judge and the learned Single Judge could not enjoy the benefit of assessing the analyzing such Circulars, which have important value. Therefore, he seeks permission to move the learned Single Judge by filing a review application seeking the withdrawal of this Letters Patent Appeal. Permission is granted. Accordingly, the Letters patent Appeal shall stand disposed of without going into the merits or any allegation.” Hence this review application initially at the instance of Sita Devi who died during the pendency of the present proceeding and has been substituted by the two sons of the employee and Sita Devi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made elaborate submission and has attempted to convince that the order dated 29.7.2006, passed in CWJC No.5898 of 2000, is an erroneous order and is fit to be recalled with the consequential direction for payment of the dues. It appears to us that the petitioners are engaged in wild-goose-chase. It has repeatedly been found by two parallel investigations conducted by the police as well as the Vigilance Department of the Electricity Board which is headed by a member of Indian Police Service in the rank of Inspector General of Police. Both the investigations have without hesitation concluded that the employee was alive, had planted the dead-body of somebody else in an effort to establish that it was his dead-body, and has done so to avoid the rigors of the departmental proceedings. We are mindful of the order of the Division Bench that the petitioners may be permitted to bring to our notice the relevant circulars of the 5 Board. We are reminded to consider the same but no such circular has been placed before us during the course of arguments on behalf of the petitioners. Secondly, this is basically an issue of fact whether the employee is dead or alive. The same has been conclusively concluded that he is alive and is feigning his death. This obviously appears to us to be a case of fraud not only on the part of the employee but his wife and two sons. We record our extreme sense of displeasure over the endless pursuit on their part to reflect the courts of justice. 5. In the result, this application is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl