Proper pleading and supporting evidence are essential in a writ petition, and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 4, allows gratuity to be paid to the nominee or heirs in accordance with the law of succession.

ORDER

B.N. Mahapatra, J.

This writ petition has been filed by one Kabiraj Sethi claiming himself to be one of the sons of late Jagadish Sethi with a prayer for issuance of a direction to opposite parties to pay the service benefits in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased-Jagadish Sethi.

2. Petitioner’s case in a nut-shell is that his deceased-father Jagadish Sethi while working as a Coal Worker under opposite party No.2-Chief Legal Manager, Central Coalfield Limited, At: Darbhanga House, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhanda died on 18.05.2008 leaving behind his wife, four sons and four married daughters. After death of father of the petitioner, it came to knowledge of the family members that they are entitled to get arrear salary and other benefits of late Gagadish Sethi from opposite party No.2. Hence, two of the brothers of the petitioner with an intention to take away all the benefits of their father have approached the authority with all service papers which came to their hands at the time of death. The said two brothers taking advantage of the old age of their mother have taken thumb impression on the blank papers. Petitioner is one of the sons of his father and only to deprive him of getting the death-cum-retiral benefits these two bothers with their mother are trying to avail all the benefits of their father. Therefore, the petitioner approached the opposite parties-authorities through his counsel on 02.05.2009 with a prayer to give the emoluments of his father. After receipt of the letter, opposite party no.1 requested opposite party No.2 to take necessary action vide letter dated 15.05.2009. Since no action was taken by opposite party No.2 for disbursement of the amount in favour of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Miss Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, who are public authorities are expected to act as per law. In this case, they are not discharging their duties in accordance law. The petitioner’s father died since May, 2008 and in the meantime more than one year has elapsed. The legal heirs of deceased Jagadish Sethi are running from pillar to post to get their legitimate dues.

4. It was further submitted that the petitioner has equal share in the death-cum-retiral benefit payable on the death of his father; but the gratuity amount has been illegally paid to the widow of the deceased.

Miss. Mohapatra, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346; judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Bhanumati Behera vs. The Life Insurance Corporation Limited, Sambalpur Division and others, 2002 (I) OLR – 200 and judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Sharadamma and others vs. Jayashree and others, II (1992) DMC 452 (DB) submitted that the nomination only indicates the head, who is authorized to receive the amount and on payment of the amount the insurer or the person responsible to pay gratuity, as the case may be, gets a valid discharge of its liability and the amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs in accordance with law of succession.

5. After going through the writ petition and hearing Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not entertainable and the reliefs claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner for following reasons.

6. It may be relevant to extract here paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition.

“4. That it is humbly submitted that after death of the father of the petitioner it came to knowledge of the family members that they are entitled to get arrear salary and other benefits from the opp. party No.2. Hence two of the brothers of the petitioner with an intention to take away all the benefits of their father have approached the authority as at the time of death they have taken all the service papers with them.

5. That it