Delhi District Court
Delhi Vidyut Board vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-01, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI In the matter of RCA DJ 20/24 CNR No:DLNE010022132024 DVB Employees Terminal Benefits Fund Through its Assistant Section Officer (PP), Pre-Fabricated Building, Rajghat Power House, New Delhi - 110002 .....Appellant versus 1. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) 2. Sh. Prahlad Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Pushkar Singh Rawat R/o K-7/2-A, Gali No. 5 West Ghonda, Gamri Mendu, Bhajan Pura, North-East Delhi - 110053 3. Delhi Transco Ltd. Shakti Sadan Building, Kotla Road, Delhi - 110002 .... Respondents Date of institution : 14.08.2024 Reserved on : 31.01.2025 Date of decision : 13.02.2025 RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 1 of 23 JUDGMENT
1. One Bagh Singh was employed with Delhi Transco Limited/R-3 and he died on 14.04.2019, while in service. He was single at the time of his death and his parents have predeceased him.
2. At the time of his death, he left behind his brother Prahalad Singh/R-2, one Deepa Rawat (wife of his other predeceased brother Karan Singh) and two children of Karan Singh. They all are admittedly Class-II legal heirs of Bagh Singh under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and in the order of precedence (as laid in the schedule of the said Act) read with Section 8 and 9 of the said Act, Prahlad Singh/brother appears in entry number 2 of the schedule which occurs prior to the entry number 4 (applicable to Deepa's children namely Aditya or Tanisha) and entry number 6 (applicable to Deepa) of the list of Class-II Legal Heirs.
3. There is no dispute on the aforesaid count.
4. Now, on death of Bagh Singh, Prahlad Singh/R-2 applied for a succession certificate with respect to death/terminal benefits of Bagh Singh to the Ld. Administrative Civil Judge vide Succession Case No. 1/20. He has been RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2 of 23 granted succession certificate vide order dated 04.03.2024 read with order dated 09.08.2024. The relevant portion of the order passed by Ld. ACJ-cum- Civil Judge reads as under:-
"A ccordingly the petition is allowed and succession certificate be issued in favour of plaintiff Sh. Prahlad Singh Rawat in respect of Terminal Benefits for an amount of Rs. 43,56,260/- (Forty three lacs fifty six thousand two hundred and sixty rupees) in total in the name of deceased Late Sh. Bagh Singh. Delhi Transco Ltd. Shakti Sadan Building, Kotla Road, Delhi-110002 shall pay an amount of Rs. 4,11,598/- to the petitioner and DVB employees Terminal benefits funds, prefabricated building Rajghat Power House, New Delhi-110002 shall pay an amount of Rs. 39,44,662/- (Thirty Nine lacs forty four thousand six hundred sixty two rupees only) along with interest or any other amount as may be enhanced or reduced till date, on filing of requisite Court Fees in terms of Article 12, Schedule I of the Court Fee Act 1870 as applicable to Delhi along with indemnity bond with one surety in the like amount".
5. At this stage, I may note that it is undisputed before this Court that at the time of death of Bagh Singh, some amount was payable to him by DTL/R-3 (where he worked) and remaining amount was available with appellant herein/Pension Trust. The heads under which the said money is payable is detailed as under:
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 3 of 23 TABLE-I S.No. Payment head Amount held Amount lying The applicable rule governing with the payment of the amount under the said head (as per appellants).
1. Death Gratuity Rs. 17,68,704/- Pension Trust CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
2. Leave encashment Rs. 7,50,131/- Pension Trust CCS (Leave) Rules 1972
3. GPF (General Rs. 13,65,827/- Pension Trust GPF (Central Service) Rules Provident Fund) 1960
4. EDLIS (Employee Rs. 60,000/- Pension Trust GPF (Central Service) Rule, Deposit Link 1960 Insurance Scheme)
5. DRF (Death Relief Rs. 20,000/- DTL/R-3 DESU Employees Death Fund) Relief Fund Scheme 1994
6. NGIS (National Rs. 1,03,586/- DTL/R-3 DESU Employees Group Group Insurance Insurance Scheme 1985 Scheme)
7. Difference of Rs. 2,88,012/- DTL/R-3 As per service conditions Salary TABLE-II Amount lying with DTL/R-3 Amount lying with Pension Trust/Appellant Total Rs. 4,11,598 Total Rs. 39,44,662/-
Grand Total Rs. 43,56,260/-
6. Now, the sole bone of contention between the parties is that as per the appellant and R-3, the Ld. Civil Judge, while granting the succession certificate to Prahlad Singh/R-2 has overlooked the fact that there are applicable statutory rules which govern the field. It is their argument that in the specific statutory rules, a brother (over the age of 18 years) of deceased does not RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 4 of 23 fall within the definition of 'family' and thus, Prahlad Singh/R-2 was not entitled to receive any succession certificate in the manner granted to him.
7. Thus, appellant has come in appeal before this Court Under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of CPC r/w Section 388(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. I may note that R-3 have not preferred a separate appeal against the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 read with order dated 09.08.2024. But, they have similar arguments as the appellant.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. I propose to deal with each head of payment for which Bagh Singh was entitled to, if he had been alive. The reason thereof shall become evident while discussing the said heads.
(i) Payment under Death Gratuity (see table-I above):
10. As per the appellants, the applicable CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 provides for payment of death gratuity to an employee's family under Rule 50 (1)(b) by laying that " if a government servant dies while in service, the death gratuity shall be paid to his family in the manner RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 5 of 23 indicated in Sub Rule (1) of Rule 51 at the rates given in the table below, namely".
11. For the purposes of the present discussion, the table provided under the aforesaid rule is not relevant.
12. Rule 51 provides for the person to whom gratuity can be paid. At this stage I may note that at the time of death of Bagh Singh, no nomination subsisted in favour of any person for the gratuity payable to Bagh Singh.
13. Now, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that in case where an employee dies without leaving any nominee, death gratuity shall be payable only to the family members enumerated in Rule 50 (6) of the said Rules. Admittedly, in the said list given, a brother (over the age of 18 years) does not find any mention. Thus, it was argued that since death gratuity could be paid only to a family member as laid in the said Rule, the said death gratuity shall lapse to the government in light of Rule 52 of the said Rules.
14. This was disputed by the Counsel for R-2/Prahlad Singh who argued that death gratuity payable to his brother cannot lapse in the manner claimed. He argued that since the proviso to Rule 52 provides that in case a succession certificate, by a Court of Law has been granted in favour of his client, the same shall apply.
15. As far as the death gratuity is concerned, in my humble opinion, the same cannot lapse to the government in the manner claimed RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 6 of 23 by the appellant. It is nobody's case that the aforesaid CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 have been framed by the Hon'ble President of India inter-alia in exercise of powers under Article 309 of Constitution of India and are thus statutory in nature. But, at the same time, I may take note of the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (which is also an Act of Parliament of India) and which is a special statute specifically governing the payment of gratuity to an employee.
16. The relevant provisions of the said Act may be noted herein which read as under:-
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section: 2 Definitions:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
(h) "family", in relation to an employee, shall be deemed to consist of -
(i) in the case of a male employee, himself, his wife, his children, whether married or unmarried, his dependent parents [6] [and the dependent parents of his wife and the widow] and children of his predeceased son, if any,
(ii) in the case of a female employee, herself, her husband, her children, whether married or unmarried, her dependent parents and the dependent parents of her husband and the widow and children of her predeceased son, if any: [7] [***] Explanation : Where the personal law of an employee permits the adoption by him of a child, any child lawfully RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 7 of 23 adopted by him shall be deemed to be included in his family, and where a child of an employee has been adopted by another person and such adoption is, under the personal law of the person making such adoption, lawful, such child shall be deemed to be excluded from the family of the employee;
Section: 4 Payment of gratuity.
(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, -
(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease:
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement:
Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority.] ......
Section: 6 Nomination.
(1) Each employee, who has completed one year of service, shall make, within such time, in such form and in such manner, as may be prescribed, nomination for the Purpose of' the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 4.
(2) An employee may, in his nomination, distribute the amount of gratuity payable to him under this Act amongst more than one nominee.
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 8 of 23 (3) If an employee has a family at the time of' making a nomination, the nomination shall be made in favour of one or more members of his family, and any nomination made by such employee in favour of a person who is not a member of his family, shall be void.
(4) If at the time of making a nomination the employee has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of any person or persons but if the employee subsequently acquires a family, such nomination shall forthwith become invalid and the employee shall make, within such time as may be prescribed, afresh nomination in favour of one or more members of his family.
(5) A nomination may, subject to the provisions of sub-
sections (3) and (4), be modified by an employee at any time, after giving to his employer a written notice in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, of his intention to do so.
(6) If a nominee predeceases the employee, the interest of the nominee shall revert to the employee who shall make a fresh nomination, in the prescribed form, in respect of such interest.
(7) Every nomination, fresh nomination or alteration of nomination, as the case may be, shall be sent by the employee to his employer, who shall keep the same in his safe custody.
Section: 14 Act to override other enactments, etc. The provisions of this Act or any rule made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 9 of 23
17. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (U/S 4(1) Second Proviso) provides that in case of death of an employee, either the nominee is entitled to receive the gratuity or where no nomination is made, the gratuity shall be received by his heirs.
18. I may further note that Section 14 of the said Act has been given overriding effect qua other enactments in as much as the provisions of the said Act are laid to have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment.
19. Thus, there is a special enactment dealing with payment of gratuity and the same allows for payment of gratuity to heirs. This is despite the fact that in the definition of 'family' provided U/S 2 (h), the brother of an employee does not even find mention. In other words, under the said Act, despite the fact that the brother of an employee is not treated to be a family, still, in law, he is entitled to receive gratuity in the capacity of heir of the deceased employee, provided the family of the said employee is not available.
20. Now, once a special legislation holds the field, a general Rule/Law i.e. the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 cannot RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 10 of 23 override the special legislation to deny the said benefit to the brother of the deceased employee. I may note that it is no longer res integra that provisions of Payment Gratuity Act 1972 have been held to hold the field for payment of gratuity despite the Pension Rules being applicable to a given employee. In this regard, I may take note of the judgment passed in In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma and another, AIR 1999 SC 293, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether an employee of the MCD (-Municipal Corporation of Delhi-) would be entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act when the MCD itself has adopted the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Pension Rules"), whereunder there is a provision both for payment of pension as well as of gratuity. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this Court is that the payment of pension and gratuity under the Pension Rules is a package by itself and once that package is made applicable to the employees of the MCD, the provisions of payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be held applicable. We have examined carefully the provisions of the Pension Rules as well as the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Payment of Gratuity Act being a special provision for payment of gratuity unless there is any provision therein which excludes its applicability to an employee who is otherwise governed by the provisions of the Pension Rules it is not possible for us to hold that the respondent is not entitled to the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The only provision which was pointed out is the definition of 'employee' in S. 2(e) which excludes the employees of the Central Government and State Governments receiving RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 11 of 23 pension and gratuity under the Pension Rules but not an employee of the MCD. The MCD employee, therefore, would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The mere fact that the gratuity is provided for under the Pension Rules will not disentitle him to get the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the overriding provisions contained in S. 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the provision for gratuity under Pension Rules will have no effect. Possibly for this reason, S. 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has conferred authority on the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from the operation of the provisions of the Act if in its opinion the employee of such establishment are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. Admittedly MCD has not taken any steps to invoke the power of the Central Government under S. 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In the aforesaid premises we are of the considered opinion that the employees of the MCD would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the Pension Rules have been made applicable to them for the purpose of determining the pension. Needless to mention that the employees cannot claim gratuity available under Pension Rules."
(emphasis supplied)
21. Thus, in my humble opinion, when a special legislation holds the field on the subject of payment of gratuity, a general Rule for payment of gratuity cannot be read to deny death gratuity payment to the heirs of Late Bagh Singh. It is undisputed before this Court that Prahlad Singh is the heir of Late Bagh Singh and thus, under Section 4 (1) Second Proviso read with Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, he is still entitled to receive the RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 12 of 23 death gratuity payable to Late Bagh Singh and thus, had rightly applied for a succession certificate in that regard.
22. Thus, the contention of the appellant and R-3 that the same is not payable to R-2 is declined.
(ii) Leave Encashment (in case of death; see table-I above):
23. Now, as far as payment under the said head is concerned, the same is payable to the family member of an employee under Rule 39C of CCS (Leave) Rules 1972. It was argued that as per the list of relations given under the said Rule, it does not permit payment of said money to a brother (over the age of 18 years). This is not disputed by the parties. The relevant and applicable rules in this regard read as under:-
Applicable rules for payment of cash equivalent of Earned leave in case of death under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1970 Rule 39-A. Cash equivalent of leave salary in case of death in service In case a Government servant dies while in service, the cash equivalent of leave salary for both earned leave and half pay leave, if any, at the credit of the deceased Government servant on the date of his death, not exceeding 300 days shall be paid to his family in the manner specified in Rule 39-C and the cash equivalent payable shall be the same as in sub-rule (2) of Rule 39.
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 13 of 23 NOTE.- In addition to the cash equivalent of leave salary admissible under this rule, the family of the deceased Government servant shall also be entitled to payment of Dearness Allowance only as per orders issued in this behalf separately.
Rule 39-C. Payment of cash equivalent of leave salary in case of death, etc., of Government servant In the event of the death of a Government servant while in service or after retirement or after final cessation of duties but before actual receipt of its cash equivalent of leave salary payable under Rules 39,39-A and 39-B, such amount shall be payable- (DOPT Notification No. 14028/1/81-Estt.(L) dated 19.07.1984) i. to the widow, and if there are more widows than one, to the eldest surviving widow if the deceased was a male Government servant, or to the husband, if the deceased was a female Government servant;
EXPLANATION.- The expression ―eldest surviving widow‖ shall be construed with reference to the seniority according to the date of the marriage of the surviving widows and not with reference to their ages;
ii. failing a widow or husband, as the case may be, to the eldest surviving son; or an adopted son; iii. failing (i) and (ii) above, to the eldest surviving unmarried daughter;
iv. failing (i) to (iii) above, to the eldest surviving widowed daughter;
v. failing (i) to (iv) above, to the father; vi. failing (i) to (v) above, to the mother; vii. failing (i) to (vi) above, to the eldest surviving married daughter;
(DOPT Notification No. 11012/I/2009-Estt. (L), dated 01.12.2009) viii. failing (i) to (vii) above, to the eldest surviving brother below the age of eighteen years; ix. ailing (i) to (viii) above, to the eldest surviving unmarried sister;
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 14 of 23 x. failing (i) to (ix) above, to the eldest surviving widowed sister;
xi. failing (i) to (x) above, to the eldest child of the eldest predeceased son.
24. Now, it cannot be disputed that the said rule only permits payment of cash equivalent of leave on the death of an employee to certain family members enumerated above. But, the above Rule is completely silent of a factual scenario when none of the above family is available. The rule does not specify as to whether the money available under the said head shall lapse to State or would go to other legal heirs of the deceased.
25. It may be noted that Rule 39(2)(a) of CCS (Leave) Rules mandates that when a government servant retires, the leave granting authority has to suo moto issue an order qua cash equivalent of leave salary for both earned leave and half pay leave (to the extent of 300 days) to the said employee. Rule 39A makes Rule 39(2) applicable to a person who has died in service whereby his family is entitled to receive the said money.
26. Now, when the said Rule read with Rule 39C is silent on the point as to who would receive the said money, if no family as provided in Rule 39C is available, it would mean that in such scenario the said money would obviously go the available legal heir, as per the general RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 15 of 23 law of succession. This is more so when the Rule itself does not provide for the lapsing of the said money to the employer.
27. Thus, the argument of the Counsel for appellant that the aforesaid Rules have been specifically framed for payment of leave encashment in case of death of an employee and the same shall have overriding effect with respect to the general law of succession as laid in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is misconceived. This is because, no such overriding effect is laid in the Rule themselves and at best, the said Rule is silent qua the factual scenario presented before this Court. Leave encashment is a beneficial Rule enacted for the benefit of any employee and thus, in my humble opinion, the interpretation that helps the employee or his legal heirs shall have to be taken in disregard of an interpretation which provides for lapsing of money in favour of government/employer. Only if the Rule provided for such lapsing of money, could such an interpretation be accepted.
28. Thus, in my humble opinion, even for the aforesaid head, R-2 was entitled to receive a Succession Certificate in the manner granted by Ld. Civil Judge.
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 16 of 23
(iii) GPF and EDLIS (see table-I above):
29. As per the appellant, payment under the said heads is governed by GPF (Central Services) Rules 1960. As per appellant, GPF payable to an employee is released to his family (on his death) as per Rule 2 (c) of the aforesaid rules. It is further pointed out that with respect to EDLIS, Rule 33B is applicable.
30. Rule 2 (c) of the aforesaid Rules defines the term 'family' and it is nobody's case that under the definition 'family' provided in the said rules, the brother (who is over 18 years of age) does not fall.
31. I may note that Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules provides for nominations to be made by a subscriber/employee and under Rule 33 of the said Rules, GPF in the event of death of an employee is paid to the nominee (who should be a member of the family) or when the subscriber leaves no family, to a nominee who can be any person.
32. The relevant Rule 33 of GPF Rules read as under:-
RULE 33- PROCEDURE ON DEATH OF A SUBSCRIBER "On the death of a subscriber before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable, before payment has been made:
(i) When the subscriber leaves a family-
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 17 of 23
(a) if a nomination made by the subscriber in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of a member or members of his family subsists, the amount standing to is credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which the nomination relates shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination;
(b) if no such nomination in favour of a member or members of the family of the subscriber subsists, or if such nomination relates only to a part of the amount standing to his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding any nomination purporting to be in favour of any person or persons other than a member or members of his family, become payable to the members of his family in equal shares:
Provided that no share shall be payable to- (1) sons who have attained majority;
(2) Sons of a deceased son who have attained majority; (3) married daughters whose husbands are alive; (4) married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive; if there is any member of the family other than those specified in Clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4):
Provided further that the widow or widows and the child or children of a deceased son shall receive between them in equal parts only the share which that son would have received if he had survived the subscriber and had been exempted from the provisions of Clause (1) of the first proviso.
(ii) When the subscriber leaves no family, if a nomination made by him in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of any person or persons subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which the nomination relates, shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination."
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 18 of 23
33. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that GPF is payable firstly to a family member defined under Rule 2
(c) (if the said family member is a nominee). If no family member is left behind, then the money is paid to any person nominated under Rule 5 of the said Rules.
34. It is pertinent to note that Rule 5 does not bar nomination in favour of any person except the family members. Though, it lays that if any family member of the employee is available, the nomination shall be made in favour of the said person.
35. In other words, if there is no family of an employee, an employee can make a nomination in favour of any third person, who may or may not fall within the definition of family.
36. Again, with respect to EDLIS, Rule 33C shows that on the event of death of an employee, money payable under the said head shall be paid to the person entitled to receive the amount standing to the credit of the subscriber/employee. It means that whosoever will receive the GPF would also receive the money under the said head.
37. Now, in the present case, admittedly, there was no nominee surviving/available under the applicable Rules.
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 19 of 23 Now if, there was no nominee and the Rules do not provide for lapse of the money standing to the credit of the employee, then, by the law of succession, the said money shall accrue to the legal heir of the deceased. This admittedly is Prahlad Singh/R-2.
38. In my humble opinion, since the applicable rules noted above did not provide for lapse of money to the State and they themselves permit any person to be nominated by the employee/subscriber, in the manner indicated above, this shall mean that the money under the said head would be payable as per the law of succession to the concerned heirs, when neither the family [as per Rule 2 (c)] nor nominee (as per Rule 5) is available. Thus, in my humble opinion, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Civil Judge in granting the letter of succession to Prahlad Singh qua GPF and EDLIS. It is ordered accordingly.
(iv) Payment under DRF (Death Relief Fund), NGIS (National Group Insurance Scheme and Difference of Salary (see Table-I above)
39. This brings me to the three other heads detailed at S.No. 5 to 7 of Table-I. I may note that DTL has not filed any RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 20 of 23 appeal against the impugned order, but have argued that since Pension Trust/appellant have preferred an appeal before this Court, they would like also to argue on merits about the legality of the said order.
40. In my humble opinion, once DTL chose not to prefer any appeal against the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 read with order dated 09.08.2024, they shall have to be treated to have accepted the said order to the extent of the amount lying with them i.e. Rs. 4,11,598/-. They cannot piggy ride on the shoulders of the appellant to now challenge the legality of the order which they themselves have not appealed. Thus, the contention of DTL that the order under challenge is illegal qua them is fallacious.
41. Even otherwise, even if the aforesaid contention is overlooked, still, in my humble opinion, the money held by DTL under the aforesaid three heads was liable to be covered by way of succession certificate for which Prahlad Singh applied. This is because, with respect of death relief fund and national group insurance scheme, it has been brought to my notice that the same are covered by any statutory rules framed under any statute or the Constitution of India.
RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 21 of 23
42. They both had their genesis as voluntary self financed schemes started by erstwhile DESU, which were initiated for the benefit of the employees of DESU. Both the schemes make the rules of nomination applicable qua GPF/CPF schemes.
43. I have already noted that the applicable GPF Rules would not come in way of Prahlad Singh for grant of succession certificate to him and the same reasoning shall be applicable for the money held by DTL/R-3 under the head of death relief fund and National Group Insurance Scheme (described at S.No. 5 and 6 of Table-I above).
44. Again, as far as the head of difference of salary is concerned, the same is the salary difference payable to Bagh Singh and would thus, be governed by law of succession and thus, Ld. Trial Court had rightly granted the succession certificate qua the same.
45. Accordingly, in my humble opinion, the present appeal has no merit and Prahlad Singh (in his capacity of being Class-II legal heir of deceased Bagh Singh and occurring in entry number 2 of the schedule annexed with the Hindu Succession Act 1956) is entitled for a succession certificate with respect to all the heads described in RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 22 of 23 Table-I above and lying with entities described in the said table.
46. Thus, the present appeal fails. It is dismissed.
47. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for necessary information. TCR be sent back. Digitally signed by AASHISH AASHISH GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.02.13 17:11:12 Announced in the Aashish Gupta +0530 open Court on 13.02.2025 District Judge-01, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi RCA DJ 20/24 Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 23 of 23