2025:JHHC:11004-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 363 of 2024 --- Butan Devi, aged about 61 years, wife of Late Gobind Lohar, resident of ET/1, CCL Colony, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh. .....Appellant Versus 1. The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its Secretary, Engineering Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The General Manager (Administration and Legal), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The General Manager, Patratu Thermal Power Station, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh. 4. Kaushalya Devi, aged about not known to the Petitioner, daughter of Jagdeo Lohar, resident of village Saliya, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh. 5. The Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through its General Manager (Administration and Legal), Engineering Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate For the Resp.-JUVNL : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mayank Deep, Advocate For the Resp. No.4 : Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, Advocate --- 07/ Dated: 09.04.2025 Heard both sides. 2. This Letter Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.04.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4309 of 2023. 3. One Gobind Lohar, who was employed in JUVN Ltd. (1st respondent) died. Before his death, he had nominated the 2025:JHHC:11004-DB appellant herein, as the person entitled to receive family pension and informed the same to the 1st respondent. 4. It appears that the 4th respondent approached the 1st respondent and disputed the claim of the appellant to get family pension claiming to be having a preferential right as the 1st wife of the deceased and disputing the right of the appellant to get the family pension on the ground that the appellant was a second wife. It was also pointed out by the counsel for the 4th respondent that there was an order of maintenance in favour of the respondent No. 4 and Rs. 3,000/- per month was being deducted from the salary of the ex-employee throughout and she was also being paid the pension. 5. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge held that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent No. 4 cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction and one of them needs to get a Succession Certificate from a court of competent jurisdiction and that in the meantime, pension shall not be paid by the 1st respondent. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed. 6. The question whether the appellant is the second wife of the deceased or the respondent No.4 is the first wife of the deceased was rightly held by the Single Judge to be incapable of adjudication in writ jurisdiction. Since the nomination admittedly existed in the employer’s records of the appellant, it is the duty of the 1st respondent to make payment of the family pension to the appellant unless the 4th respondent approaches the Family Court 2025:JHHC:11004-DB or the Civil Court as the case may be, and gets an adjudication in her favour that she is the first wife and that she is entitled to the family pension. It is not open to the 1st respondent to stop the payment of family pension to the appellant merely because the 4th respondent claims to be the first wife of the deceased. Any adjudication which the 4th respondent may have obtained in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the deceased employee cannot be given any value because the said proceeding is a summary proceeding and the question whether the respondent No.4 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased cannot be decided in such a summary proceeding. 7. Therefore, to the extent the learned Single Judge has held that one of the parties i.e., the appellant or the 4th respondent should get a Succession Certificate from a Court of competent jurisdiction, the order of the learned Single Judge does not appear to be correct. The learned Single Judge ought to have directed the 4th respondent to get the declaration about the validity of her marriage with the deceased in a proceeding in a competent forum in which the appellant is also impleaded as a party. 8. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set-aside and respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the family pension to the appellant including arrears of family pension which have been withheld from the date they have been withheld. Liberty is granted to the 4th respondent to approach the 2025:JHHC:11004-DB competent forum to obtain a declaration about the validity of her marriage with the deceased in a proceeding to which the appellant also is a party. 9. In the event the 4th respondent succeeds in such a proceeding, then the respondents 1 to 3 shall pay the family pension to her. 10. Accordingly, the LPA stands disposed of. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk/vikas