The court found that there is sufficient scope and provision in law for the intervener applicant to claim any benefit later on.

Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 1387 of 2018

1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of one Shobha Prasad, who was the ex-wife of the deceased Bishundeo Prasad, whose payment of pensionary benefits is the issue in the writ petition. The same has been filed seeking intervention.

2. Learned counsel in support of the intervention petition submitted that though in the divorce case, she has lost and even the First Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 2003 had also dismissed the application but challenge to the same before this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 2007, though initially dismissed for default on 23.01.2015, subsequently M.J.C. No. 2380 of 2017 has been filed seeking recall of the order and notice has been issued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is not the wife and, thus, is not even remotely connected with the lis. It was further submitted that the intervener applicant’s daughter is already on record, being respondent no. 7, who has appeared and filed counter affidavit and, thus, if at all required, her interest is already protected through her daughter.

4. Having considered the aforesaid, the Court finds that the intervener applicant having been divorced in the year 2001 and having lost at the appellate stage and even in the High Court it is only on the restoration application that notice has been issued and not on the main appeal, matters cannot be allowed to wait till the decision in the said application, as even later on, if at all there is any occasion for the intervention applicant to claim any benefit, there is sufficient scope and provision in law for such recovery.

5. In view thereof, the Court does not find any reason to allow the Interlocutory Application and accordingly the same stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

Re.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10236 of 2016

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Magadh University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) and respondent no. 7

7. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

“(i) For the issuance of a writ in the nature of writ on Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary including the salary for the period April 2009 to October 2009 with pay revision, with pension and dearness allowance, Gratuity, Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F.), Group Insurance, Earned Leave and other consequential and financial benefits with 18% interest per annum. ii) For any other relief to which the Petitioner may be found entitled.”

8. The undisputed facts in the case are that the mother of the respondent no. 7 was initially married to Bishundeo Prasad but the two were divorced in Matrimonial Suit No. 111 of 2000 by judgment and decree dated 17.10.2001. The mother of the respondent no. 7 preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 2003 which also was dismissed by order dated 19.01.2007 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. Challenge to the same before this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 2007 resulted in dismissal of the appeal for default on 23.01.2015. Though, subsequently after more than two years of such dismissal, M.J.C. No. 2380 of 2017 has been filed by the mother of respondent no. 7, for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 2007, but only notice in the restoration application has been issued. Thereafter, on 26.01.2009, Bishundeo Prasad died and the petitioner being the sole wife applied for death-cum-retiral dues, including some of the dues which were unpaid pertaining to his service period.

9. Upon notice, the respondent no. 7 has appeared and also field counter affidavit.

10. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is agreeable to the University paying her family pension being the wife, but with regard to other dues, she is ready for dividing half and half between herself and the other branch, which is respondent no