IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.393 of 2008 THE EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION through its Regional Director having its office at Panchdeep Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna- 800001 …Opposite party no.1/Appellant Versus 1. ANINDITA SRIVASTAVA W/o Late Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, resident of Krishna Nagar House No.132, Road No.22, Patna-1, P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna …Applicant/Respondent No. 1st set 2. Eureka Forbes Ltd. through its Manager having its office at Goverdhan Market, Patna-4, 3. The Managing Director, Eureka Forbes Ltd., Shalin Palace, 2nd Floor, Floor- 81-83, Bhawani Shankar Pd., Dadar (West) Boniharg & 4. The Managing Director, 7, Chakraberi Road, South Calcutta-25 …Opposite party 2nd set/Respondent 2nd set ----------- 7/ 24.02.2011 Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is filed. Let it be kept with the record. The appellant is aggrieved with the judgment dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court & ESI Court, Patna, in ESI Case No.02 of 1999, by which it has been held that husband of the respondent no.1, an employee of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, had died in course of employment. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, undoubtedly, the deceased had died in Ranchi while he was proceeding to Calcutta for joining his post on transfer and since he met his death not in discharge of his official duties, the claimant was not entitled to dependent benefits. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 contends that there was a letter which has been exhibited as Ext.-A which shows that the deceased had been directed to join his duty at Calcutta via Ranchi and, therefore, he met his death while in 2 discharge of his official duties. Considering the rival contentions, there is no difficulty in holding that the deceased had, in fact, lost his life in discharge of his official duties, Therefore, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)