2026:JHHC:9123-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 822 of 2025 Khukumani Devi, aged about 66 Years W/o Late Jawahar Lal Singh Deo, Resident of Village -Oriya, P.O.-Muru, P.S. Nimdih, District Seraikella- Kharsawan. … … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office situated at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist. - Ranchi. 3. The Director, (Primary Education), School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office situated at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, Dist.-West Singhbhum. 5. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Seraikella, P.O. & P.S.-Seraikella, Dist. Seraikella Kharsawan. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, Dist. Chaibasa. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Seraikella, P.O. & P.S. Seraikella, Dist. Seraikella Kharsawan. 8. The Treasury Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, Dist.-Chaibasa. 9. The Treasury Officer, Seraikella, P.O. & P.S.-Seraikella, Dist.- Seraikella Kharsawan. 10. The Treasury Officer, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum. 11. The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, having its office at Near A.G. More, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. 12. The Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, office at Veerchand Patel Road Area, P.O. & P.S. Patna, Dist. Patna, Bihar. … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate Mr. S.B. Gupta, Advocate For the Resp-State: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I For the A.G.: Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate --------- 2026:JHHC:9123-DB -2- 02/Dated: 01.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is the 2nd wife of Jawahar Lal Singh Deo, the deceased employee who superannuated from service on 31.07.1996 as Assistant Primary Teacher. 3. The appellant-petitioner had earlier instituted W.P.(S) No. 187 of 2023 seeking family pension. This petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to take recourse to other remedies available under the law. 4. From the tenor of the order dated 10.10.2023, it is quite clear that the recourse referred to therein was to the Civil Court for obtaining appropriate declaration as to the petitioner’s status. There are bound to be disputed questions of fact in the matter of this nature and therefore, the petitioner withdrew W.P.(S) No. 187 of 2023 with liberty to take recourse to other remedies available under the law. 5. However, instead of approaching the Civil Court, the appellant- petitioner, relying upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in the case of Radha Devi Vs. Chief General Manager & others Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 2365 of 2022 made on 26th July 2024, once again instituted W.P.(S) No. 2515 of 2025, which has since been dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.11.2025. 6. From the perusal of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in Radha Devi (Supra) it is apparent that the same was made in the peculiar facts referred to in the order. This is precisely stated in the order. Besides, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and in order to do complete justice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution. 2026:JHHC:9123-DB -3- 7. The learned Single Judge has correctly observed that powers analogous to those conferred upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India were not vested in the High Court. The learned Single Judge has also referred to Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 to hold that what the Hon’ble Supreme Court does under Article 142 to do complete justice cannot be regarded as a binding precedent. 8. However, instead of simply dismissing the writ petition and restoring the earlier order dated 10.10.2023 in W.P. (S) No. 187 of 2023, the learned Single Judge proceeded to declare the petitioner’s marriage with Jawahar Lal Singh Deo as void. This was possibly because the appellant was attempting to contend that there was no difference between the appellant’s case and the case of Radha Devi (supra), which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding about the marriage being void would come in the appellant’s way, should the appellant decide to take recourse to the ordinary remedies before the Civil Court. 10. To allay the apprehension of the appellant, we hold that the findings/ observations in the impugned order about the appellant’s marriage being void are set aside. Such setting aside is not on merits and therefore, should not even remotely be construed as imparting any validity to the appellant’s marriage. Such setting aside is because we believe that the learned Single Judge should not have decided this issue one way or the other, but left it to the Civil Court to decide, should the appellant approach the Civil Court and seek any relief in this regard. 2026:JHHC:9123-DB -4- 11. Further, we clarify that if the appellant indeed approaches the Civil Court for a decision on her status or her claim that she was validly married to Jawahar Lal Singh Deo, and therefore, entitled to family pension or any part thereof, then the Civil Court must decide such issues without being influenced by any observations in the learned Judge’s impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2025. 12. The Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of in the above terms, without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 01, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 04.04.2026