Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhmi Devi vs General Public on 10 May, 2000
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J.
1. One burinder Pal was a Constable in the Punjab Police. He died on 7.2.1992 leaving behind his mother Smt. Lachhmi Devi-And widow Smt. Kulwinder Kaur. Smt. Lachhmi Devi applied for the grant of succession certificate claiming one half share in the estate of her son Surinder Pal viz. the amount lying in the savings bank account in his name, G.P.F., Death-cum- retirement Gratuity, proceeds of the LIC policy and the ex gratia grant. It was urged that she is the mother of the deceased and is entitled to one half share while the other one half share belongs to his widow.
2. Smt. Kulwinder Kaur contested the claim of her mother-in-law, saying that she (Smt. Kulwinder Kaur) is the widow of the deceased Surinder Pal and was nominated by him, so far as his estate was concerned viz. the bank balance, provident fund etc.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :-
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to 1/2 share from the disputed amount 1OPA
2. Relief.
Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balachaur, found"that the ex gratia grant of Rs. 30,000/- with in terest was liable to be paid exclusively to Smt. Kulwin der Kaur. So far as the remaining amount i.e. bank bal ance, G.P.F., Death-cum-retirement gratuity and pro ceeds of the insurance policy is concerned, Smt. Lach hmi Devi and Smt. Kulwinder Kaur are entitled to share equally. It was also directed that the amount withdrawn by Smt. Kulwinder Kaur on the basis of the nomination, shall be liable to be adjusted towards her share in these amounts.
4. Smt. Kulwinder Kaur went in an appeal. Learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur allowed the appeal and held that Smt. Lachhmi Devi was not at all entitled to any amount, so far as G.P.F., Gratuity etc. was concerned. The application of Smt. Lachhmi Devi for granting succession certificate was accordingly dismissed.
5. Not satisfied with this order of the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, Smt. Lachhmi Devi has come up in revision to this Court.
6. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Lachhmi Devi-petitioner was the mother of the deceased, while Smt. Kulwinder Kaur was the widow of the deceased. Both of them are Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act and, therefore, both of them are entitled to share the estate of the deceased equally. It was submitted that the mother is not entitled to family pension as she is not among persons who are eligible for family pension.
As regards other benefits viz. G.P.F., leave encashment etc. she is entitled to. In support of this submission, he (learned Counsel for the petitioner) drew my attention to Haryana State Electricity Board v. Surasti Devi, JT 1995 (9) S.C. 631, where the mother of the deceased employee had claimed family pension. The High Court had applied rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and held that the mother was also a dependent and was entitled to the family pension. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mother was not entitled to family pension as she had been excluded from the persons eligible for family pension. Rule 6.17(3) defines "family" for the purpose of Family Pension Scheme to include the relatives of the Government employee - (a) wife, in the case of a male Government employee and husband, in the case of a female Government employee; (b) a judicially separated wife or husband; (c) minor sons; and (d) unmarried daughters below the age of 21 years. Note 1 includes children adopted legally before retirement. Note 2 states that marriage after retirement will not be recognised for purpose of this scheme. Family Pension Scheme is covered by Chapter VI of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. The enumerated persons are eligible to get family pension according to the family pension scheme. Rule 8.35 defines 'mother' also as one of the persons eligible for family pension. But it will be in relation to the death due to wounds or other extraordinary pensions. It was submitted that the mother was entitled to other benefits viz. G.P.F., leave encashment etc. Suffice it to say, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave no finding that the mother was entitled to the benefits viz. G.P.F., leave encashment etc. In para 5 of the report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as fol-lows:-
"5. It is stated across the Bar that the deceased is entitled to other benefits, viz. G.P.F., leave encashment etc. which were granted by the trial Court. In that behalf, the mother is certainly entitled to whatever claims the deceased would have been entitled. Therefore, the decree of the courts below in that behalf is confirmed. The State is directed to pay the entire amounts in that behaff within six months from the date of the receipt of this order."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Ram Sarup and another v. State of Punjab through the Secretary Local Self Government Department and another, 1990 (1) R.S.J. 198, where it was held that brothers are entitled to provident fund and ex gratia. Gratuity is payable to them if the de ceased had nominated them. Ex gratia they will get if they are unemployed and entirely depend on the de ceased.
8. In case Ram Sarup and another v. State of Punjab and another (supra), Ram Sarup and Shiv Parshad were brothers of Hans Raj who was employed as Mo-harrir in the Municipal Committee, Kharar. On his death, they applied to the Municipal Committee for payment of provident fund, gratuity, ex gratia amount as well as salary of Hans Raj deceased. They had obtained succession certificate. They again approached the Municipal Committee with a representation that provident fund, gratuity, ex gratia and salary of Hans Raj deceased be disbursed to them. The Municipal Committee did not pay them the amount of provident fund, gratuity etc.
9. In this case, thus the mother and widow of deceased were not involved. So far as the claim regarding gratuity etc. was concerned, brothers of the deceased alone were in arena and they were in receipt of succession certificate.
10. The learned Counsel drew my attention to State of Punjab and another v. Kharak Singh Kang and another, 1998 (1) R.S.J. 412, where a Division Bench of this court held "that parents of the deceased employee cannot be excluded from the definition of family'. They cannot be denied the benefit of family pension." He drew my attention to State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Kedar Nath Sood and another, JT 1998 (9) SC 157, where it was held that "the father was not entitled to family pension but where the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Government to pay a sum of Rs. 10,0007- as ex gratia to the father in addition to the payments already made, because he was a man of 80 years of age, who had lost his young spn and there was nobody to look after him and no one was entitled to the pension under Rule 54(14)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Government to consider the amendment of the Rule so as to include "father" in the definition of 'family' for the purpose of family pension, where he is going unprovided for and thew is nobody entitled to pension.
11. Learned counsel for $ie petitioner (mother) thus submitted that the mother is entitled to the share of G.P.F. etc. with her daughter-in-law, as both of them are class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent (wife), on the other hand, submitted that the wife alone is entitled to G.P.F. etc and mother had no right so far as G.P.F. etc: is concerned. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Jyotiben Natvarlal Bhatt and another v. State of Gujarat and others, 1999 (1) S.L.R. 174, where it was held that the Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designeB to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate, the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. No other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive the family pension. The employee has no title nor any control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The family pension Scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme. It does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. Parents are not entitled to family pension by way of Will as it does not form part of the estate of the deceased."
13. In Jyotiben Natvarlal Bhatt and another v. State of Gujarat and others (supra), one Bipinbhai Joshi had died. Jyotiben Natvarlal Bhatt and another are his wife and minor daughter. He had executed a Will dated 14.7.1991, whereby the amount of provident fund, gratuity, amount of group insurance and the amount of family pension were bequeathed to his parents. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that "the deceased employee had no right to bequeath family pension as family pension did not form part of his estate. Family, for the purpose qf family pension will include the following relatives of the Government servant (a) wife, in the case of male Government servant; (b) Husband, in the case of a female Government servant; (c) Minor sons; and (d) Unmarried or minor daughters. As per the said definition, the petitioners who are the wife as well as the minor daughters of the deceased are included as the members of the family and, therefore, they are th6 persons entitled to claim family pension."
14. In Smt. Violet Issaac and others v. Union of India and others, 1991 (1) S.L.R. 735 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the Family Pension -Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive family pension. Thus, no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The employee has no title nor any control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The Family Pension Scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. Accordingly, in the present case, the widow of the deceased is entitled to receive family pension, notwithstanding the Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased."
15. On the strength of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Violet Issaac and others (supra), the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the widow of the deceased alone was entitled to G.P.F., Gratuity etc., as she alone fulfils the definition of'family' for the purpose of Family Pension Scheme.
16. In my opinion, the mother of deceased was not entitled to any share out of the G.P.F., gratuity, leave encashment etc. as it was not the estate of the deceased, which could devolve on his heirs on his death or in accordance with the Will, if he had executed any. In the presence of wife and the children of the deceased employee, the mother/father cannot ask for family pension.
17. For the reasons given above, this Civil Revision is allowed partly. Smt. Lachhmi Devi is entitled to share the proceeds of insurance policy with her daughter-in-law equally.' As far as G.P.F., amount, gratuity and ex gratia are concerned, Smt. Kulwinder Kaur (widow) alone is ,entitled and Smt. Lachhmi Devi is not entitled to G.P.F., gratuity and ex gratia. Succession certificate shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly.
18. Revision partly allowed.