Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Review petitioner was the respondent in the writ petition where a direction was issued in the matter of claim for post retirement benefit sought by the writ petitioner in lieu of late Ramesh Munda said to be her husband, who had retired from the services of CCL and died on 22.04.2001. For better appreciation, judgment dated 13.12.2010 passed in W. P. (S) No. 5184 of 2010 is quoted hereunder:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The husband of the petitioner was working under the respondents and he retired and subsequently died on 22.4.2001. The death certificate is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-2. After the death of the first wife, the petitioner was married to the incumbent and therefore, the petitioner is rightful claimant of the post retiral benefits accrued to her late husband. Several representations have been made, but the respondents have failed to take any notice. The last representation/reminder was dated 18.8.2010, which has been annexed as Annexure-5, but all efforts proved futile. Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 states that they are required to forward the representation after examining the record and thereafter respondent No. 5 will making the disbursement. In the circumstance, respondent nos. 1 to 4 shall make every endeavour to forward the representation within two weeks to the concerned authority from the date of certify copy of the order is produced before him and thereafter within three weeks the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region -III, Ranchi Municipal Corporation Building, district Ranchi shall decide the matter and disburse the entire post retiral benefit forthwith. It is made clear that this direction should be followed and adhered in letter and spirit. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of."
(2.) The review petitioner has raised a plea that writ petitioner/opposite party herein had suppressed facts while seeking relief from this Court. Reference is made to an affidavit at Annexure-4 dated 15.09.2003 stating that she herself is also known as Hira Kamin, which was in fact name of the first wife of the deceased-employee. She had sought correction in service book on such representation for inclusion of her name as Sukur Mani Kamin @ Hira Kamin. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. The review petitioner therefore have a serious doubt about the identity of the writ petitioner in the matter of compliance of direction passed in the writ petition.
(3.) Counsel for the CMPF has filed show cause in the connected Contempt Petition stating that name of the writ petitioner was not appearing in the nomination form of provident fund where name of Hira Kamin was appearing, therefore, claim of the petitioner has been returned to the employer-CCL. Counsel for the CMPF has stated that in Form PS-3 prepared in 1998, the name of Sukur Mani Kamin is shown.;