Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Basir Uddin Molla vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 April, 2015
Author: Shivakant Prasad
Bench: Shivakant Prasad
1
24.04.2015
kc. 2 W.P.5160(W) of 2006
Basir Uddin Molla
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
In this writ application, the petitioner Basir Uddin Molla has
contended in his petition that Jhamtia High School has been approved upto
Class-VI (six) on January 1, 1984 and the said school has been upgraded
and approved upto Class-VIII(eight) subsequently. The school has also been
started with the Class-IX (nine) in the year 1997. The petitioner has been
working in the said school since 1997 and the Managing Committee of the
school issued appointment letter since the petitioner possessing requisite
qualification in History. His case in this writ petition is that authority has
accorded approval to organising teacher but the petitioner has been denied
approval in violation of the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The letter issued on 22nd September, 1997 by the Secretary of the school to
the petitioner goes to show that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher to teach Social Science Group (History) in Classes IX and X in
expectation that the school will be upgraded as a full flagged high school and
the approval of his appointment could be considered only when the school is
recognized as full flagged high school from the appropriate authority.
None appears on behalf of the parties even on third calls. No
accommodation has been prayed for. Nevertheless, the petitioner has a
cause before this Court. Therefore, on consideration of the letter of
appointment issued by the Managing Committee of the School through the
Secretary of the school, if his position has not been approved as yet, it is
expected that the Managing Committee will refer his case for approval before
the authority concerned.
With the above observations, the writ application stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties, as early as possible.
(Shivakant Prasad,J.)
2
Mandamus directing the respondents, their agents and subordinates
not to give any effect and/or further steps on the basis of Annexure-H not to pay any amount to the respondent no.4 and also for a direction to the respondents to accept the application of the petitioners and consider the same according to law and also prays Rule 27 of the Writ Rules be dispensed with.
None is appearing on behalf of the petitioners. However, Mr. Kundu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, candidly submits before this Court that L.I.C. policy is stood in the name of Rabindra Nath Bera (since deceased) with the nominee being Smt. Rupasree Bera, the respondent no.4 herein and that as per policy the nominee has been paid the policy amount. My attention has also been invited to affidavit- in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 on February 08, 1996. Adverting to paragraph ( c ) of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no.4, it is clear that she has already withdrawn money in question on December 20, 1995 before the writ petition was moved before this Hon'ble Court and she has spent the entire money for different purposes inasmuch as she had to borrow huge amount of money to save the life of her husband who died a pre-mature death in harness at S.S.K.M. Hospital, Calcutta on September 30, 1995.
Mr. Kundu, further submits that a letter dated 19th October, 2006 addressed to him by the Zonal Manager, LIC vide Ref-EZ/Legal/PS/BC where it is revealed that the death claim amount of Rs.1,30,398/- of the concerned policy was paid to the recorded nominee Smt. Rupasri Bera vide cheque on 13.12.1995.
The said letter is kept on record.
3Mr. Kundu has cited a decision in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Devi, reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 wherein it has been observed "A mere nomination made under Section 39 does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee and 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 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 summary of the relevant provisions of Section 39 establishes clearly that the policy holder continues to hold interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquires no sort of interest in the policy during the lifetime of the policy holder. If that is so, on the death of the policy holder the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be tested mentary or intestate. There is no warrant for the position that Section 39 of the Act operates as a third kind of succession which is styled as a 'statutory testament'. The provision in sub-section (6) of Section 39 which says that the amount shall be payable to the nominee or nominees does not mean that the amount shall belong to the nominee or nominees. The language of Section 39 is not capable of altering the course of succession under law."
Having respectfully gone through the relevant provisions of Sections 39 of the Insurance Act, this Court is of the view that the respondent no.4 admittedly has received the amount and the money in question a nominee under the said policy it is expedient to have disbursed the amount equally amongst the legal heirs. The petitioner no.1 is the mother of Late Rabindra Nath Bera (since deceased). Petitioner no.2 is claimed to be the wife of Late Rabindra Nath Bera (deceased). Petitioner no.3 is the son of Late Rabindra Nth Bera and petitioner no.4 is the daughter of Late Rabindra Nath Bera. To that effect, there is no dispute from the side of the L.I.C. officials.
Be that as it may, it is for the petitioners to claim the amount in question by process of law i.e. by filing a suit for recovery of the amount in question against the respondent no.4 subject to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Rabindra Nath Bera.
It may be noted here that Mr. Kundu rightly submits that they have discharged their liability and they are not in the lis.
Now the moot question involving in this case as to whether the petitioner no.2, Smt. Rekharani Bera is the legally married wife of Late Rabindra Nath Bera or the respondent no.4 happens to be the legally wife of the deceased is a matter for decision by a competent Civil Court.
The writ petition is thus, disposed of without any order as to costs. 4 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, as early as possible.
(SHIVAKANT PRASAD,J.)