- (1.) IT appears that vide order dated -01.05.2008, a direction was given to the petitioner to add the Oriental Insurance Company, Ranchi, as a party -Respondent in this writ application and to file requisites etc. for service of notice upon the Oriental Insurance Company, Ranchi. Though in the cause title of the writ application, the name of the Insurance Company has not been specifically mentioned as party -Respondent No. 6 but pursuant to the requisites filed by the petitioner and the notices issued, Respondent No. 6 having received the notice, has appeared in this writ application and has also filed a counter affidavit through Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate, whose name also appears in the cause list.
(2.) LET the name of the Respondent No. 6 be mentioned in the cause title of the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out at the outset that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent -C.C.L. in the present writ application, appears to be misdirected and upon reading the same, it appears that the counter affidavit pertains to some other writ application in which a claim for retiral benefits, appears to have been made by the petitioner therein, in respect of the dues payable to her deceased -husband Sheonandan Ram. Learned counsel explains that in the present writ application, the petitioner is Rina Devi w/o late Kaleshwar B.P. and her claim in this writ application is confined to the demand for payment of Group Insurance only. Learned counsel adds further that the counter affidavit of the Respondents -C.C.L. has already been filed way back on 08.02.2008. Learned counsel for the Respondent -C.C.L. is directed to verify from the records as to whether the counter affidavit filed on 06.02.2009, pertains to the present writ application and, if not then to take appropriate steps for withdrawal of the counter affidavit from the records of this case and to file the same in the appropriate writ application.
(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents - Insurance Company, claiming that since the claim has been forwarded to it by the employer long after the stipulated period of limitation, referred to as the cut off date, the petitioner's claim for Group Insurance could not be entertained.;