ORDER

Date : 24-05-2018 (Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. N. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2690/2017.

WP(C) No.2690/2017 was preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2, Smt. Anju Kakati @

Anjumoni Das and Smt. Dipika Das Nath @ Dipika Das, both daughters of late Gauri Das. They had preferred the writ petition claiming their share in the terminal benefits of their late father Gauri Das who was an employee in the IOCL.

Record discloses that late Gauri Das married twice. His first wife Hemprabha Das expired on 21.09.1999. Thereafter, he married second time and his second wife is Smt. Sabita Das who is appellant No.1. Out of the wedlock with Sabita Das, appellant No.2 Himangshu Das was born. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the daughters of late Gauri Das from his first wife late Hemprabha Das.

Terminal benefits that were due to late Gauri Das were as under:-

.

HEAD OF PAYMENT AMOUNT Gratuity Rs.10,00,000/-

Leave Encashment Rs.39,000/-

Provident Fund Rs.35,00,000/-

Group Savings linked Insurance (GSLI) Rs.50,000/- EDLI Rs.6,02,000/-

SBFS option R2A Rs.50,00,000/- Total Rs.1,01,91,000/-

Late Gauri Das had nominated appellant No.1 Sabita Das as his nominee for payment of his terminal benefits.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that they were also entitled to a share of the terminal benefits and the entire terminal benefits should not go to the appellants.

Learned Single Judge, after hearing the matter, disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 27.02.2018 in the following terms:-

“22. In view of the reasons stated above, the petitioners are entitled to receive a proportionate share of the provident fund and the SBFS along with the respondent Nos.4 & 5. However, the question as to whether the son of the respondent No. 4, who had been allegedly adopted by Late Gauri Das, would have a share of the terminal benefits of Late Gauri Das, would have to be decided by taking evidence in a Civil Court. Thus, assuming that the alleged adopted son of Late Gauri Das is to be granted a share of the terminal benefits of Late Gauri Das, then the petitioners, the respondent No. 4, respondent No. 5 and the alleged adopted son, would have to share the terminal benefits @ 1/5 th share each. As the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have already been given 50% of the terminal benefits of Rs. 1,01,91,000/-, the petitioners would have been entitled to 2/5th of the said amount.

23. Accordingly, as this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to a proportionate share of the terminal benefits of Late Gauri Das, the State respondents are directed to release 2/5th of Rs. 1,01,91,000/-, to the petitioners @ 1/5th share each. The balance amount of money with the State respondents i.e half of the 1/5th share, will be subject to payment to the petitioners only after a decision is taken by the Civil Court with regard to whether the son of the respondent No. 4 is proved to be the adopted son of Late Gauri Das in the Civil Court. If the Civil Court finds that the alleged adopted son is eligible to a proportionate share of the terminal benefits, not only will the State respondents have to pay the alleged adopted son, the remaining amount, but the balance of the 1/5th share to be paid will have to be given by the respondent Nos. 4 &

5, as they have been given 50% of the terminable benefits, instead of 2/5th share.

However, if the Civil Court finds that the alleged adopted son is not eligible to a share of the terminal benefits, the State respondents shall give the balance 1/5th share to the petitioners. The said 2/5th amount should be paid to the petitioners by the State respondents within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.”

In the appellate proceeding, an order