Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander Kanta vs Monika on 18 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)126PLR706
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J.
1. Shri Prem Sagar was Auditor in Defence Pension Disbursing Office, Hoshiarpur. He died on 28.6.1991 leaving behind him his wife Smt. Monika and mother Smt. Chander Kanta. His mother Smt. Chander Kanta filed suit for declaration against Smt. Monika and others to the effect that she is entitled to receive as nominee/heir of Prem Sagar deceased his group insurance amount, balance of general provident fund, credit balance of pay, leave encashment, death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension payable on account of the death of her son Prem Sagar and that his wife is not entitled to these accruals and further for permanent injunction restraining Union of India and others defendants from disbursing these accruals to her (Smt. Monika-defendant). Prem Sagar had nominated her (Smt. Chander Kanta) as a person entitled to collect/receive group insurance amount, balance GPF, credit balance of pay, leave encashment, death-cum retirement gratuity and family pension. It was alleged that even otherwise, she is entitled to collect 1/2 of these accruals as she is an equal heir with Smt. Monika under the Hindu Succession act. It was further alleged that if the Court found that she alone was not entitled to receive these accruals, she was entitled to receive 1/2 share of these accruals as she is an equal heir with Smt. Monika under the Hindu Succession Act falling in class-1 of the Schedule attached to the said Act.
2. Smt. Monika contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that suit was not maintainable in this form. Plaintiff had no locus standi to file this suit. Suit was barred under the provisions of Central Administrative Tribunal Act. It was admitted that Prem Sagar was son of the plaintiff. Prem Sagar was her husband., It was alleged that Smt. Chander Kanta was not entitled to any of these accruals. He had changed the nomination after his marriage to her (Monika). It was alleged that his widow was the only person entitled to these accruals as per rules applicable to the Central Government Employees. Union of India was bound to pay all these accruals to her, she being nominee of the deceased-Prem Sagar. Monika thus refuted the claim of her mother-in-law to these accruals saying that she being the nominee of her husband was entitled to these accruals. In any case, she being the widow was entitled to these accruals exclusively to the exclusion of the mother of the deceased.
3. Union of India put in written statement urging that suit was liable to be dismissed as no cause of action accured to the plaintiff. Further civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in view of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. As per the service record, Prem Sagar deceased had not constituted anyone as his nominee. In the absence of nomination, these accruals were liable to be paid to the members of the family as per rules 50(6) and 51 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Plaintiff was not entitled to any claim as she was not in his family as defined in CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Smt. Monika alone was entitled to these accruals.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
3. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit? OPD
6. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 CPC? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive Insurance amount, balance of General Provident Fund, Credit balance of pay etc. Leave encashment amount death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension being nominee/heir to deceased Prem Sagar? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration, as prayed for ?OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
10. Relief.
5. Subordinate Judge IInd Class, Hoshiarpur decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff was entitled to receive half share of group insurance amount, balance of GPF, credit balance of pay, leave encashment,death-cum-retirement gratuity being class-I heir in view of her finding that these accruals would devolve in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act on both of them equally since both of them were class-I heirs as mentioned in the schedule attached to the Hindu Succession Act. Civil Court was found to have jurisdiction to try the suit. Plaintiff was found to have cause of action when her right to claim disbursement of these accruals to her was denied by the defendants. Smt. Monika was restrained by decree for permanent injunction from receiving these accruals beyond half share.
6. Smt. Monika went in appeal. Chander Kanta put in cross-objections, whereby she claimed entire of these accruals.
7. Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur accepted the appeal and dismissed the cross-objections, in view of his findings, that Smt. Monika alone was entitled to collect group insurance amount and GPF amount as she was widow of the deceased. Nomination if any in favour of the mother lapsed on the marriage of the deceased. Death-cum-retirement gratuity also vested in Monika alone as she satisfied the definition of the "family". Credit balance of pay and leave encashment also vested in Smt. Monika in view of Rule 39-A and 39-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Smt. Monika alone was found entitled to family pension. It was found that in the presence of the mother of the deceased, if there be his widow, the pensionery benefits would devolve on the widow. It was found that the pensionery benefits are not an "estate" so that they could be shared by the heirs among themselves.
8. Not satisfied with the judgment and the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, Smt. Chander Kanta has come up in further appeal to this Court and has prayed that these accruals be ordered to devolve equally on her and her daughter-in-law in equal share in view of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. 1956.
9. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
10. Rule 39A of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 lays down that in case a Government Servant dies while in service, the cash equivalent of the leave salary that the deceased employee would have got had he gone on earned leave that would have been due and admissible to him but for the death on the date immediately following the death and in any case, not exceeding leave salary for 240 days, shall be paid to his (employee's) family in the manner specified in rule 39-C without any reduction on account of pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity.
11. Rule 39C of these rules lays down that in the event of the death of Government servant while in service or after retirement or after final cessation of duties but before actual receipt of the cash equivalent of leave salary payable under rules 39, 39A and 39B. such amount shall be payable 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.
12. Explanation - The expression "eldest surviving widow" shall be construed with reference to the seniority according to the date of the marriages of the surviving widows and not with reference to their ages.
13. 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-
(i) Wife or wives including, judicially separated wife or wives in the case of 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, and
14. Rule 51 says that the gratuity payable under the rule 50-shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity in conferred by means of a nomination under rule 53. 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 family as; in clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (6) of rule 50, to all such members in equal sharers;
(ii) If there are no such surviving members of the family as in 1sub-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. 15. Rule 53(4) says that 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 subsequent acquiring family, or an additional member in the family, as the case may be.
16. 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.
17. 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 prescribed 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 implications of these 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 the definition of "family" as given will apply to the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980.
18. Family means-(a) 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. Monika (widow) of the deceased was entitled to collect the amount of the group insurance scheme as well.
19. GPF amount also vested in Smt. Monika (widow) of the deceased as she alone is covered by the definition of "family". Rule 10 of the General Provident Fund (Central) Services Rules, I960 defines "family" which includes wife/wives, except judicially separated wife, husband (unless expressly excluded) parents, a paternal grand parent when no parent is alive, children (including adopted children), minor brothers, unmarried sisters and deceased son's widow and children. This shows that it is wife who is entitled to GPF amount after the death of her husband. Column No. 6 of the nomination form Ex. D-l shows that one of the contingencies on the happening of which the nomination will become invalid is marriage. After the marriage of Prem Sagar his mother Chander Kanta had no right to receive or claim the amount of GPF.
20. It was held in Smt. Sarbati Devi and Anr. v. Smt. Usha Devi. AIR 1984 S.C. 346 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 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.
21. Smt. Sarbati Devi's case (supra) will not apply so far as the amount of group insurance scheme is concerned, as there the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the disbursement of insurance proceeds of a policy taken on the life of the assured. The Supreme Court held that the insurance proceeds shall be disbursed according to the law of succession. So far as Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980 is concerned that is a special scheme introduced by the Government. The scheme is intended to provide for the Central Government Employees, at a low cost and on a wholly contributory and self-financing basis, the twin benefits of an insurance cover to help their families in the event of death in service as lump sum payment to augment their resources on retirement.
22. It would bear repetition that the definition of family as given in Rule 2(iii) of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules 1960 brought out above is applicable to the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme 1980. Family pension also goes to the widow alone. Widow is entitled to benefits under the Army Group Insurance Scheme, 1976. Parents of the deceased are entitled if there is no widow and children. I am supported in this view by a judgment in Swaran Kaur and Anr. v. Dalbir Kaur and Ors., (1999-3)123 P.L.R. 568.
23. Devolution of these accruals will be governed not by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act bet by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980 and General Provident fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960. Hindu Succession Act deals with succession to the property which the deceased was holding during his life time whatever accrued to the deceased that accrued to the deceased because he was serving the affairs of the Government. These accruals are mere benefits.
For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.