JUDGMENT :

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.11.

2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant assailing the decision dated 07.02.2019 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6755 of 2018.

3. Short facts which would be necessary for consideration of the lis, stands enumerated as under:

Admittedly, the father-in-law of the writ petitioner-appellant was an employee of the Central Coalfields Limited who died in harness. The mother-in-law, who was the nominee, could not get family pension and Coal Mines Provident Fund as she also died subsequently in the year 2008. Thereafter, the son of the deceased original employee, i.e., husband of the writ petitioner-appellant, applied for payment of family pension as well as other dues accrued to his mother after death of his father. When he could not get it, he knocked at the door of this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.5865 of 2012 with a prayer for grant of family pension as well as other dues which had accrued to his deceased mother after the death of his father, i.e., the original employee, who died in harness as stated above. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 29.06.2017 chiefly on two grounds, as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned. First was that the petitioner did not produce the succession certificate and the other was that all the legal heirs were not made party respondents. Subsequently, the husband of the writ petitioner-appellant also died that had led her to agitate her grievance for payment of dues which had accrued in favour of her mother-in-law, i.e., widow of the original employee of Central Coalfields Limited. When she was asked to produce succession certificate, she filed the writ petition challenging such direction. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner is not the only legal heir upon whom the entire estate will devolve. Thus, she must obtain a succession certificate from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Hence, this appeal has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that the earlier writ petition was dismissed for want of impleading the other legal heirs whereas in the present case legal heirs have been brought on record and, thus, order can be passed for payment of amount in favour of the writ petitioner-appellant along with other legal heirs who have been impleaded as respondents.

5. However, let it be noted that no such relief was ever sought in the writ petition as the same was filed by the writ petitioner-appellant for following reliefs:

“That the instant writ application is directed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions upon the respondents as to why respondents may not be directed to pay the petitioner the amount of CMPF and family pension of her mother-in-law from 08.08.1990 to 10.07.2008 with statutory interest after quashing of letter dated 26.06.2014 issued by the respondent No.11 and letter dated 17.07.2014 (Annexure-9 series) issued by the respondent no.10.”

It is clear from above that writ petitioner was claiming the benefits only for herself and not for other legal heirs. The aforesaid submission is being made at the appellate stage only after the writ petition has already been dismissed.

6. It is next argued that as per the concerned provisions also, the daughter-in-law would be entitled to receive the amount due to the original deceased employee in the absence of his widow and son, both having died subsequently in the case in hand.

7. For better appreciation, the relevant provision from the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme is extracted and quoted as under:

“64. Accumulations of a Deceased Member. – to whom payable :-- On the death of a member before the amount standing to his credi