Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of death -cum -retiral dues to the petitioner along with interest thereon. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, namely, Jai Prakash Kumar Besera was posted as Fitter in the Raj Mahal Group of Mines of M/s. Eastern Coalfield Ltd. (ECL), Lalmatia, District -Godda. During service period, Jai Prakash Kumar Besera died on 31.5.2006 and the petitioner claiming herself to be the legally married wife of the deceased employee, filed an application for making payment of gratuity before the Personnel Manager on 25.7.2006. The had petitioner also preferred a representation on 25.9.2006 with respect to the life cover. The Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF), Deoghar issued a cheque bearing No. Cheque No. 931565 dated 6.7.2007 in the name of the petitioner with respect to the provident fund dues of the deceased employee, but the said cheque was not handed over to the petitioner to which she filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Godda, and where in spite of her repeated attempts the Death -cum -Retiral dues of Jai Prakash Kumar Besera was not paid to the petitioner, she has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. No one appears for the private respondent No. 6.
(3.) Mr. Manoj Kumar Sati learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was married with Jai Prakash Kumar Besera and being the legally married wife, the petitioner is the sole claimant to the Death -cum -Retiral benefits accruing on account of the death of her deceased husband. It has been submitted that the petitioner has preferred an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Godda, but subsequently the same was withdrawn and the petitioner had thereafter preferred the present writ petition. It has also been submitted that the petitioner preferred an application u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance in T.R. No. 30 of 2006 in which an order was passed on 17.3.2006 directing her husband to make payment of maintenance @ Rs. 800/ - per month. Learned counsel further adds that the name of the petitioner was included in the nomination form and even though the status of the petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee, but the same has been disputed by the respondent M/s. ECL and her name continues to figure as a nominee and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefits.;