2025:JHHC:37775 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5100 of 2021 ------ Emrencia Kerketta, W/o Late Astik Munda, Village + P.O. Gamhariya, P.S. Baharagora, District East Singhbhum, presently residing at House No.166, New Baradwari, P.O. Sakchi, P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Home Department, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. Deputy Inspector General, South Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh. 3. Deputy Inspector General (Budget), Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. Superintendent of Police, Chatra, having his office at P.O., P.S. & District Chatra-825401. 5. Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, having its Office at P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Janak Mishra, Advocate Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate ------ 05/ 16.12.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of having Succession Certificate obtained from the Court of Civil Jurisdiction i.e. the District Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Succession Certificate Case No.37 of 2015, filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a settlement due of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh), has not been disbursed to the petitioner. She also claims interest. 2025:JHHC:37775 2 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the Succession Certificate was issued to the petitioner in view of the letter which was addressed to this petitioner vide Memo No.128/Pension dated 11.07.2015, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Chatra. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid settlement due of Rs.10 lakh, along with the interest, which the respondents have illegally withheld. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the respondent – State (employer) has already recommended payment of Rs.10 lakh, in favour of the petitioner, but it is the Senior Accounts Officer in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, under whose signature the Letter dated 05.03.2020 was issued, rejecting her claim, posing ground that since the petitioner is the third wife of the deceased, she is not entitled for the said benefit. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that the deceased - Astik Munda, was an employee of the Police Department. He was a Constable. 5.1. The settlement due of Rs.10 lakh is still lying with the Police Department at Chatra. The petitioner being the wife of late Astik Munda, claimed the said amount when respondent No.4 – Superintendent of Police, Chatra, vide Letter as contained in Memo No.128/Pension dated 11.07.2015, directed the petitioner to obtain a Succession Certificate. 5.2. The petitioner filed Succession Certificate Case No.37 of 2015, in terms of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 2025:JHHC:37775 3 The said Succession Certificate case was allowed by the District Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide order dated 22.09.2018. The Court had ordered to issue Succession Certificate in favour of this petitioner with respect of the debts and securities amounting to Rs.10 lakh, along with accrued interest. A certified copy of order dated 22.09.2018 passed in Succession Certificate Case No.37 of 2015 has been annexed with this writ petition as Annexure-4. 6. After going through the order passed in Succession Certificate Case No.37 of 2015, I find that it was pleaded by this petitioner that the deceased – Astik Munda, was earlier married to one Lily Munda, who died issueless. After the death of Lily Munda, one Rukmini Munda, was kept in the house to look after the old parents of Astik Munda. It has been stated that the old parents treated her as daughter-in-law, but there was no marriage. The petitioner thereafter married Astik Munda, and a certificate of marriage was already issued by the Marriage Officer, Jamshedpur. 6.1. The District Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, while deciding the Succession Certificate case, took into consideration the marriage certificate and the letter issued by respondent No.4, wherein they have sought the Succession Certificate. 6.2. The District Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, after considering the evidence on record, which suggests that the deceased had married this petitioner after the death of first wife and there was no other marriage, held that the Succession 2025:JHHC:37775 4 Certificate should be issued in the name of this petitioner. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been issued the Succession Certificate in respect of the debts and securities amounting to Rs.10 lakh, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. Since the Succession Certificate has been obtained, the respondents should have disbursed the amount in favour of this petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had already given an undertaking to the effect that if there is any rival claim, she will satisfy the same and will also indemnify the employer. 8. The respondent – Principal Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, is not disbursing the claimed amount of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner is third wife of the deceased. 9. The aforesaid ground taken by the Principal Accountant General, cannot be accepted in view of the findings arrived at by the District Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Succession Certificate Case No.37 of 2015. It is true that the deceased – Astik Munda, was initially married with one Lily Munda, but there is nothing on record to suggest that Astik Munda was married to Rukmini Munda. The marriage certificate between this petitioner and the deceased suggests that their marriage was registered and further in the judgment, there is nothing to suggest that the deceased – Astik Munda, had any other surviving wife at the time of marriage with the petitioner. Thus, the ground taken by the respondent - Principal Accountant General is not correct. 10. The respondent No.5 – Principal Accountant General 2025:JHHC:37775 5 (A & E), Jharkhand, is directed to pass an order to release the amount in favour of this petitioner, who is the holder of the Succession Certificate. The amount should be paid within six weeks. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 16th December, 2025 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 18.12.2025