Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Attro vs Smt.Kanta Rani And Others on 1 June, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
RSA No.2341 of 1987 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2341 of 1987
Date of Decision: June 01, 2012
Smt. Attro
... Appellant
Versus
Smt.Kanta Rani and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate,
for the appellant.
None for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. V.K.Kaushal, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 01.06.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby judgment and decree dated 27.02.1987 passed by the learned Trial Court has been set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that Tilak Raj was working as Upper Divisional Clerk in the office of Income Tax (Recovery Branch), Chandigarh. Tilak Raj died on 18.04.1986. He left behind the appellant-plaintiff (mother, namely, Smt. Attro and defendant No.1 Kanta Rani, widow. A suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff mother claiming half share in the General Provident Fund, Gratuity, Arrears of Salary and Group Insurance Scheme and other benefits. The RSA No.2341 of 1987 2 learned Trial Court decreed the suit and in appeal the said judgment has been reversed. Hence, this regular second appeal.
At the time of admission, no substantial questions of law were framed. However, subsequently, following substantial questions of law have been placed on record:-
"1. Whether the nominee is mere trustee for legal heirs who are entitled to share the amount after death of insured?
2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1987 passed by the learned Trial Court is against well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 1984 SC Page 346?
3. Whether the learned appellate court has wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the mother of deceased claiming her share of amount against the respondent Kanta Rani widow nominee of deceased Tilak Raj?
4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff-appellant being mother of the deceased and class-I heir is legally entitled to receive the amount due on account of Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc. to the extent of half share on account of death of her son Tilak Raj?
5. Whether the nomination only indicate the hand which is authorized to receive the amount and amount can be claimed by the heir of the policy holder in RSA No.2341 of 1987 3 accordance with the law of succession governing them?"
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the record.
The only substantial question of law involved in the present appeal is:-
Whether the appellant - plaintiff being mother is entitled to half share in the retiral benefits of deceased Tilak Raj in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the General provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 and Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980?
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is a class-I heir, as such, she is entitled to half share in all the retiral benefits. Learned counsel further contended that any nomination in favour of defendant-respondent No.1 - Kanta Rani has no effect on the rights of the appellant. The said contention has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.5.
I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
Before I delve upon the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant rules of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "1972 Rules"). For the purposes of Rules, 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, `family' in relation to a Government servant, means:- RSA No.2341 of 1987 4
(i) Wife or wives including, judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant.
(ii) husband including judicially separated husband in the case of a female Government servant.
(iii) sons including step sons and adopted sons.
(iv) unmarried daughters including step daughter and adopted daughters.
(v) widowed daughters including step daughters and adopted daughters.
(vi) father including adoptive parents in the case of individuals.
(vii) mother whose personal law permits adoption.
(viii) brothers below the age of eighteen years including step brothers.
(ix) unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including step sisters.
(x) married daughters, Rule 51 of 1972 Rules is reproduced as under:-
"51. Person to whom gratuity is payable - (1)(a) The gratuity payable under Rule 50 shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred by means of a nomination under rule 53.
(b) If there is no such nomination or if the nomination made does not subsist, the gratuity shall be paid in the manner indicated below:-
(i) If there are one or more surviving members of the RSA No.2341 of 1987 5 family as in Clause (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule 6 of Rule 50, to all such members in equal shares.
(ii) if there are no such surviving members of the family as in sub-clause (i) above, but there are one or more members as in clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi) of sub-rule (6) of rule 50, to all such members in equal shares.
Rule 15(4) of 1972 Rules reads as under:-
"(4) The nomination made by a Government servant who has no family at the time of making it, or the nomination made by a Government servant under the Second proviso to Clause (i) of sub-rule (3) where he has only one member in his family shall become invalid in the event of the Government servant subsequently acquiring a family, or an additional member in the family, as the case may be".
It is, thus, clear that the death-cum-retirement gratuity is also payable to the widow of the deceased in preference to the mother of the deceased.
Rule 19.3 of the Central Government Employees Group Scheme, 1980 says that if a member of the `scheme' has a family at the time of his making the nomination, he shall make such nomination only in favour of a member of his family. The foot-note below Form No.7 prescribes for nominations requires that where a Government servant who has no family makes a nomination, he shall specify in Column-5 that nomination shall become invalid in the event of his subsequently acquiring family. The implication of these RSA No.2341 of 1987 6 provisions is that if a member of the scheme has a family, he can nominate only a member or members of his family and any nomination given before marriage of the Government servant becomes invalid after marriage. In rule 2(iii) of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "1960 Rules"), the definition of "family" as given will apply to the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980.
"Family" means "in the case of a male subscriber, the wife or wives and children of a subscriber, and the widow or widows and children of a deceased son of the subscriber". Thus, the mother of the male subscriber is not covered by the definition of the family. Smt. Kanta Rani (widow) of the deceased was entitled to receive the amount of the group insurance scheme as well. General Provident Fund also vested in Smt. Kanta Rani (widow) of the deceased as she alone is covered by the definition of "family".
Similar question came up before this Court in Chander Kanta vs. Monikabn reported in 2000(3) Punjab Law Reporter, 706, wherein it has been held that in the presence of widow, mother has no right to receive the amount of gratuity payable on the death of a government servant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment in a case Smt. Sarbati Devi and another vs. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 S.C., 346 wherein it was held that a mere nomination made under Section 39 does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive RSA No.2341 of 1987 7 the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them.
The said judgment is not applicable in the present case as there are specific provisions in the Service Rules defining the family and the person entitled for the benefits which are covered by the specific service rules.
In view of law laid down in the case of Chander Kanta vs. Monika reported in 2000(3) Punjab Law Reporter, 706 and Swaran Kaur vs. Dalbir Kaur reported in (1999-3) 123 P.L.R. 568, the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980 and General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 are applicable and the provisions of Hindu Succession Act will not apply with regard to the service benefits. Hindu Succession Act deals with succession to the property which the deceased was holding during his life time. The service benefits on the death of Tilak Raj will only go the widow Kanta Rani.
The question of law as framed is answered in negative and it is held that the appellant is not entitled to the service benefits on the death of Tilak Raj.
For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
June 01, 2012 [ Paramjeet Singh ] vkd Judge