1. Leave is granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. These appeals are directed against the orders of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad dated May 12,1999 in CMWP. No. 19545 of 1999 and dated August 19, 1999 in modification application no. 38853 of 1999. The appellant claims to be a legatee and the first respondent claims to be the wife of late Mr. P,C. Shukla who was working as deputy director, education, U.P. He had allegedly been killed on September 3, 1996. The 1st respondent, claiming to be the wife of late Shukla, approached the civil court and obtained succession certificate in her favour in regard to a sum of Rs. 88, 274/- representing his leave encashment amount. The appellant and one Kamal Kant Shukla purporting to be the legatees under an alleged Will of late P.C. Shukla, staked claim to all monetary benefits payable consequent upon his death. While so, the 1st respondent filed C.M.W.P. No. 19546 of 1999 in the High Court of Allahabad praying for a direction to the respondents therein, namely, State of U.P., the deputy director, education and the mukhya lekha adhikari, shiksha nideshalya to release the entire pensionary benefits to her. On May 12, 1999 a division bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed payment of the amounts claimed with 12 per cent interest to her within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. It was further directed that the respondent authority should take action "after holding necessary enquiry against the officers who were responsible for default and the respondents were required to report compliance of the order.
4. In the said writ petition, a modification application no. 38853 of 1999 was filed by the appellant, after coming to know of that order, stating that late Shukla executed a Will under which he was entitled to the amounts payable on his death and it was prayed that the order dated May 12, 1999 be recalled, The High Court declined to recall the said order but to safeguard the interest of the parties, ordered that the government should release the amount pursuant to the order of the court dated May 12, 1999 after obtaining necessary security from the petitioner. The application was thus disposed of on August 19, 1999. It is the validity of those two orders that is assailed in these appeals.
5. It is surprising to note when the status of the 1 st respondent as wife is in dispute and when the appellant and the said Kamal Kant Shukla had made rival claim, they were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition by the first respondent. It appears that the High Court passed the final order in the writ petition without hearing necessary parties which resulted in payment of amounts to the 1st respondent more that she was entitled to, under the succession certificates granted to her by the civil court. On this short ground, the orders under challenge are liable to be set aside. We are informed that the suit filed by the appellant and Kamal Kant Shukla for obtaining succession certificate in respect of the amounts in disputes was dismissed for default and an appeal against that order is pending before the civil court. Be that as it may, in the circumstances, in our view, it would be just and appropriate to set aside the orders under challenge and remit the case to the High Court to hear the parties and pass appropriate order on the writ petition in accordance with law, we order accordingly.
6. The appellant may approach the High Court for being impleaded if not already impleaded.
7. The amount withdrawn by the 1st respondent, pursuant to the impugned orders of the High Court, less Rs. 83,274/- which she is entitled to receive pursuant to the succession certificate granted to her by the civil court, shall be deposited by her in the High Court within three months from today, which shall be kept in fixed deposit, to be paid to the successful party, abiding the result of the writ petition.
8. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs.