Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karoleen Sodhi vs State Of Punjab And Another on 29 April, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 11661 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision:29.04.2013
Karoleen Sodhi ...Petitioner
V/s.
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral).
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of the writ of mandamus directing respondents to release the amount of gratuity of deceased-Saroj Sodhi and for grant of family pension to the petitioner being the sole nominee of the deceased as per the Registered Will dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure P-3).
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that sister of the petitioner namely Saroj Sodhi was working as a Lecturer in the Education Department, Government of Punjab, since 1992. She was unmarried and was staying with the petitioner. She was working as a Lecturer in English at YRBN Government Senior Secondary School, Darbar Pandori, District Gurdaspur. She unfortunately died on 20.10.2008. Prior to her death, she executed a Registered Will dated 14.09.2006 in favour of the petitioner in which she bequeathed all her service benefits including retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner on the basis of the Will has been released the amount of GPF, General Insurance Scheme benefits and leave encashment of the deceased-Saroj Sodhi. An amount of `50,000/- as ex-gratia has also been released to her. The benefit of the death cum CWP No. 11661 of 2009 (O&M) -2- retirement gratuity and family pension has not been released to the petitioner only on the ground that she is a married sister of the deceased and does not fall within the definition of 'family' as laid down under Rule 6.16-B and 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II (hereinafter referred to 'Rules'). Rule 6.16-B(2) deals with the situation where nomination can be made and if such a nomination is made, the same shall be treated as equal to that of sub-rule (2) and (4) of rule 6.16-A. This would entitle the nominee to release the gratuity under sub-rule (1) of 6.16. On this basis, it has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that a Registered Will having been executed, the same should be treated as a nomination under Rule 6.16- B(2). Merely because the petitioner does not fall within the definition of Rule 6.16-B (1) would not dis-entitle the petitioner to claim gratuity and other retiral benefits. To support this contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon observations made by this Court in para 8 of the judgment in Mrs. Manju Malhotra Versus State of Haryana etc. 2006 (3) S.C.T. 538, it has been mentioned that a Will has been executed and that would have an effect of substituting the nomination which has been prescribed under the rules. Prayer has, therefore, on this basis, been made to release the benefits as has been claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has stated that the benefits as claimed by the petitioner being statutory rights will be considered within the framework of the rules itself but if there is no provision for granting the said benefits, the same cannot be released. While referring to the judgment in the case of Mrs. Manju Malhotra, she contends CWP No. 11661 of 2009 (O&M) -3- that Will which was registered in favour of the person, fell within the definition of family, it is under those circumstances that the said observations has been made by this Court. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case . Rule 6.16-B(1) and (2) reads as follows:-
"6.16-B(1); For the purpose of this rule:-
(a) "Family" shall include the following relatives of the officer:-
(i) wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of male officer;
(ii)husband including judicially separated husband, in case of female officer;
(iii)sons; (including step-children and adopted children)
(iv)unmarried and widowed daughters.
(v)brothers below the age of 18 years and un-married or widow sisters, including step brothers and sisters;
(vi)father;
(vii)mother; (including adopted parents in case of individuals whose personal law permits adoption)
(viii)married daughters; and
(ix)children of a pre-deceased son;
(b) "Persons" for the purpose of this rule shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.
(2) An officer shall, at any time after confirmation, make a nomination conferring on one or more persons, the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under sub-rule (2) and (4) of rule 6.16-
A and any gratuity which having become admissible to him under sub- rule (1) of that rule and rule 6.16 has not been paid to him before death. Provided that if, at the time of making the nomination, the officer has a family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any person CWP No. 11661 of 2009 (O&M) -4- or persons other than members of his family."
Perusal of the above rules would show that a person to be entitled for the grant of gratuity has to either fall within the definition of a 'family' as prescribed under Rule 6.16-B(1) or has to be a nominee as provided under Rule 6.16-B(2). Petitioner is neither of them. The claim of the petitioner is only based upon the registered Will in her favour and reliance has been placed upon the observations made by this Court in Mrs. Manju Malhotra's case (supra). Perusal of the said judgment would show that Will was in favour of the person who would fall within the definition of 'family' as has been laid down in Rule 6.16-B(1) and, therefore, the question before the Court was as to who within the definition of 'family' would be eligible for grant of retiral benefits i.e. the Will holder or the nominee. The dispute was primarily a claim inter-se between the members of the family, which dispute was resolved on the basis of registered Will.
Present is the case where there is no nomination made nor does the petitioner fall within the family laid down in statutory rules. In these circumstances, the claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be gone into in these proceedings. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy which would be available to the petitioner in the light of the registered Will in her favour as per succession law.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
April 29, 2013 JUDGE
Divyanshi