Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER herein is widow who was the nominee for the 50% of the C.M.P.F. amount and for the rest amount the mother of the deceased employee (i.e. husband of the petitioner) was the nominee. Petitioner has got 50% of the amount of C.M.P.F. by virtue of her nomination. She is claiming the balance 50% amount as the mother of the deceased has also died on 8.9.2011. Respondent -C.M.P.F., through the impugned letter at Annexure -4 dated 4.2.2013 are insisting upon production of a succession certificate to decide the petitioner's claim for balance amount of C.M.P.F. They have relied upon the provisions of Para -64(i)(ii)(iii) of the C.M.P.F. Scheme which is at Annexure -5 to the writ petition as also the extracts of the Manual containing Clause 15 which deals with the processing of claim of C.M.P.F. amount in death cases i.e. death of a nominee.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of Most. Sunita Devi Vrs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & others passed in W.P.S. No. 2445 of 2013 dated 11.3.2014, which was affirmed in L.P.A. No. 183 of 2014 by the judgment dated 19.8.2014 in support of his contention that the question involved herein is no longer res -integra and both the provisions of Para 64 of the C.M.P.F. Scheme and Clause 15.2 of the Manual have been considered by this Court and the learned Division Bench in the aforesaid judgments. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee has been paid the entire Gratuity amount of the deceased employee and has also been appointed on compassionate ground. It is also submitted that in the Family certificate, which is enclosed as Annexure -B at page 14 of the counter affidavit by the respondents, the Family members comprise petitioner and 4 minor children which includes 2 daughters and sons. He has also referred to the service records maintained in the Employer's Office where the name of the petitioner occurs apart from the father and mother of the deceased employee. It is not in dispute that father and mother of the deceased employee have already died. It is therefore submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Most. Sunita Devi (Supra), who in fact was the daughter -in -law of the deceased employee claiming full C.M.P.F. amount along with her minor children. In the said case also the widow of the deceased employee had died before receiving any payment of the C.M.P.F. amount.;