2026:JHHC:18240-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5115 of 2022 Masomat Saroj, W/o Late Loknath Singh, R/o Village-Darha, PO-Darha, PS-Balumath, District-Latehar ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Senior Accounts Officer (Pension-3), Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Treasury Officer, Chatra 4. The Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. The Registrar, Civil Court, Chatra 6. Khushboo Kumari, W/o Late Parmanand Kumar Singh, D/o Sri Yugal Prasad Singh, R/o Village-Tikuliya, PO & PS-Simariya, District- Chatra ... … Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 3721 of 2022 Khushbu Kumari, W/o Late Parmanand Kumar Singh, R/o Village- Darha, PO-Bariatu, PS-Balumath, District-Latehar ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Civil Court, Chatra 2. The Registrar, Civil Court, Chatra 3. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, office situated at A.G. Colony, Doranda, Ranchi 4. The Assistant Accountant General/Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand, office situated at A.G. Colony, Doranda, Ranchi 5. Masomat Saroj, W/o Late Loknath Singh, R/o Village-Darha, PO- Bariatu, PS-Balumath, District-Latehar 6. The Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi ... … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate [In W.P.(S) No. 5115 of 2022] Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate [In W.P.(S) No. 3721 of 2022] For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II For the Respondent-JHC : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate For the Accountant General: Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, Advocate ----- Order No. 16 Dated: 23.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Learned counsel for the parties agree that these petitions can be disposed of by a common order now that the settlement 2026:JHHC:18240-DB 2 has been reached between the contesting parties i.e between Masomat Saroj and Khushbu Kumari. 3. This is a case of an unfortunate dispute between the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 5115 of 2022, namely, Masomat Saroj (mother) and the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 3721 of 2022, namely, Khushbu Kumari (widow) of Late Parmanand Kumar Singh, who was an employee (driver) in the Civil Court at Chatra. 4. Parmanand Kumar Singh, while on duty, expired on 21.05.2016 under tragic circumstances. While he was driving the Principal District Judge, Chatra, to work, a tree fell on the car in which Parmanand Kumar Singh died on the spot. 5. This dispute involves the mother and the widow of Late Parmanand Kumar Singh and concerns the pensionary and other benefits on account of the demise of Parmanand Kumar Singh. 6. The record shows that the death-cum-retiral benefits of approximately Rs. 10 lakhs have been equally shared by the mother and the widow. About this, there is no dispute. 7. The record also shows that on account of the unfortunate demise of Parmanand Kumar Singh, his wife, Khushbu Kumari, has secured a compassionate appointment in a Class-IV post in Civil Court at Chatra, earning approximately Rs. 33,000/- per month. Further, the petitioner, Khushbu Kumari, is also drawing a family pension of approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month. Thus, in all, Khushbu Kumari is presently earning around Rs. 42,000/- per month. 8. There is also no dispute that the petitioner, Khushbu Kumari, has been regularly paying Rs. 5,000/- per month to Masomat 2026:JHHC:18240-DB 3 Saroj (mother-in-law) from her earnings as aforesaid. 9. Considering the above position, we suggested the parties and their learned counsel that they reach to some settlement instead of continuing with this litigation. 10. We are happy to note that the learned counsel for the parties and the parties themselves have adopted an extremely reasonable approach and reached a settlement. 11. Mr Binod Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Khushbu Kumari, pointed out that Khushbu Kumari lives in Chatra in a rented accommodation. Besides, even the expenses in the city are higher than those in a village where her mother-in-law resides. Learned counsel pointed out that there are two other sons besides Parmanand Kumar Singh who are also duty-bound to maintain their aged mother. 12. Mr Afaque Ahamed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Masomat Saroj, did try to submit that the other two sons are not maintaining the mother and that the mother survives on Rs. 5,000/-paid by the petitioner, Khushbu Kumari. 13. According to us, it is the duty of the other two sons to maintain their aged mother as well. The entire responsibility cannot be cast upon the widow, Khushbu Kumari. Besides, the petitioner, Masomat Saroj, has her own house to reside in the village. She and her other two sons are not sharing the agricultural produce or income with Khusbu Kumari. If it is true that the other two sons are not maintaining or contributing to the maintenance of their mother, it is always open to Masomat Saroj to take out appropriate proceedings against them under the Maintenance 2026:JHHC:18240-DB 4 and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 14. Therefore, considering all these aspects, we felt that the interests of justice would be best served if the amount of Rs. 5,000/-, which the petitioner, Khushbu Kumari, is already paying her mother-in-law, were enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month, effective from 01.07.2026, although the learned counsel for Mosamat Saroj was suggesting Rs. 10,000/- per month. 15. These matters were adjourned yesterday to enable the learned counsel for the parties to obtain specific instructions from their respective clients regarding the above proposal. 16. Today, the learned counsel for the parties, based on specific instructions from their respective parties, state that these petitions could be disposed of by recording the settlement that Khushbu Kumari will, with effect from 01.07.2026, pay to Masomat Saroj an amount of Rs. 8,000/- each month by transferring this amount into the bank account of the petitioner, Masomat Saroj. This agreement, which is reached between the contesting parties, is accepted and recorded. 17. The statement made on behalf of Khushbu Kumari, that as long as she is in service under the compassionate appointment she has secured in the Civil Court, she will, each month from 01.07.2026 onwards, transfer Rs. 8,000/- into the bank account of Masomat Saroj, is accepted as an undertaking before this Court. This amount includes Rs. 5,000/-, which Khushbu Kumari is already paying to Masomat Saroj, and is not in addition. This amount should be transferred by the 7th day of each month, which means the first transfer will be on 07.07.2026. This amount 2026:JHHC:18240-DB 5 should be paid/transferred as long as Masomat Saroj is living. 18. Masomat Saroj has agreed that, with the above settlement, the disputes raised in the two petitions are settled and the two petitions may be disposed of. 19. Given the above settlement, which learned counsel for the contesting parties agree is the full and final settlement of the controversy in these petitions, the same are disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 20. Once again, we appreciate the reasonable stance adopted by the parties and their Lawyers in this matter. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 23, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 25.06.2026