Delhi District Court
Through Her Attorney vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 10 January, 2023
SC No. 127/2018
Pushpa Devi v. State
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PRIYA
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SOUTH
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 127/2018
CNR No. DLST03-001955-2018
Smt. Pushpa Devi
S/o Sh. Krishan Gopal
R/o H. No. 276, Sector-4,
Chiranjeev Vihar,
Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Through her attorney
Radha D/o Sh. Krishan Gopal
R/o H. No. 276, Sector-4,
Chiranjiv Vihar
Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
........Petitioner
Versus
1. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Through Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Through its Management/Director/AR
At 18, Qutub Institutional Area
SJS Marg, New Delhi - 110016
3. State Bank of Saurashtra
Having account with its
branch at:
New Cantt. Road, Dehradun,
Uttarakhand
1 of 22
SC No. 127/2018
Pushpa Devi v. State
4. Indian Bank
Having account with its
branch at:
7 SJS Marg, Qutub Institutional Area
New Delhi - 110016
5. The Postal Life Insurance
Through its Chief General Manager
Directorate of Postal Life Insurance
Chanakyapuri Post Office Complex
1st Floor, New Delhi - 110021
6. Monika
W/o Sh. Govind Kumar
7. Pratishtha (minor-daughter
aged about 11 years)
D/o Sh. Govind Kumar
8. Shristi (minor daughter aged about 1 year)
D/o Sh. Govind Kumar
(The respondent no. 7 & 8 being minor
the present petition will be represented through their
legal guardian / mother i.e. respondent no.6.
namely Monika)
Above respondent no. 6, 7 & 8 are
R/o Nayavnsh, P.O. Guloathi
Mahayatpur Garhi
Gulaothi, Bullandshar
Uttar Pradesh - 245408
And also at :
C/o Sh. Gyanendra Singh
E-187, 1st Floor, Gali no.5
East Vinod Nagar, Delhi - 110091
........Respondents
2 of 22
SC No. 127/2018
Pushpa Devi v. State
PETITION FOR GRANT OF SUCCESSION
CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 372 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925
1. Date of Institution of Petition : 13.12.2018
2. Date of Judgment : 10.01.2023
3. Decision : Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose off the petition filed by petitioner for grant of succession certificate in respect of outstanding payment/dues with Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan/ responSdent no. 2, account bearing no. 10901604370 with State Bank of Saurashtra/ respondent no.3, account bearing no. 901807443 with Indian Bank/respondent no.4 and policy bearing no. UA27625CC with Postal Life Insurance/respondent no.5, which existed in the name of the deceased late Sh. Govind Kumar.
Pleadings
2. In the petition, it is inter-alia pleaded that petitioner is the mother, respondent no. 6 is the wife and respondent no. 7 & 8 are the daughters of late Sh. Govind Kumar who expired on 29.01.2018. The deceased did not leave behind any will. Respondent no.2 was the employer of the deceased who is holding his terminal benefits. Deceased Sh. Govind Kumar also had bank accounts with respondent no. 3 to 5.
3. The debts and securities of the deceased are as follows:-
3 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State
(i) With the respondent no. 2 (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan)
a) Central Services GPF Rs.34,57,973/-
b) Gratuity Rs.16,37,000/-
c) KVS Employee Welfare Scheme Rs.76,867/-
d) Leave encashment Rs.3,68,000/-
e) Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme Rs.60,000/-
f) Group Insurance Scheme Rs.60,000/-
g) Pay and Allowances/arrears Rs.3,10,000/-
h) Family Pension Not known
i) Medical reimbursement Rs.1,00,000/-
(ii) With the respondent no.3 (State Bank of Saurashtra)
Rs.15,827/-in account No.10901604370.
(iii) With the respondent no.4 (Indian Bank) Rs.15333/- in account No. 901807443.
(iv) With respondent on. 5 (Postal Life Insurance) Rs.7,32,064/- in Policy No. UA27625 CC.
4. As the petitioner and respondent no. 6 to 8 are the only surviving class-I legal heirs of the deceased, they are entitled to receive the amounts/debts/securities held with respondent no. 2 to 5. A Succession petition no. 43/18 was earlier filed by the petitioner but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. There is no other surviving legal heir of the deceased. The deceased was ordinarily residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, there is no legal impediment in the grant of succession certificate for debts and securities of the 4 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State deceased.
5. The succession petition was opposed by respondent no. 6 to 8 by virtue of written statement filed by respondent no. 6 (on her behalf and on behalf of respondent no.7 & 8 being their mother/natural guardian). It was contended that the petitioner was not dependent on late Sh. Govind Kumar and an endorsement to this effect was made in his service book on 19.09.2001. The petitioner's husband is a retired government servant getting his regular monthly pension and therefore, the petitioner is dependent on her husband and not late Sh. Govind Kumar. As per endorsement dated 02.08.2006, the name of respondent on. 6 had been incorporated in the service book of the deceased. The nomination in service record in favour of the petitioner was made by deceased prior to solemnization of marriage with respondent no. 6, and is not valid.
6. Respondent no.2 has already released the amount of leave encashment i.e. Rs.3,20,092/-, KVS EWS i.e. Rs.76,867/-, 50% arrears of 7th CPC i.e. Rs.1,03,952/-, salary for month of January 2018 i.e. Rs.57,005/- and medical bill(s) i.e. Rs.5,526/-, in favour of respondent no.6. Postal Life Insurance has released a sum of Rs.7,32,064/- in favour of respondent no.6. Payment of gratuity and provident fund to respondent no.6 was stopped due to objections raised by petitioner before respondent no.2. Being the dependent of the deceased and class- I legal heirs, succession certificate be issued in favour of respondent no. 6 to 8, and not in 5 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State favour of the petitioner.
7. By virtue of written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it was submitted that as per the nomination in the service book of late Sh. Govind Kumar, his father Sh. Krishan Gopal and the petitioner are the nominees for payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity. However, as per the family history specified in the service record, petitioner was not dependent of late Sh. Govind Kumar and only his spouse (i.e. respondent no.6) and two children (i.e. respondent no. 7 & 8) are the dependent family members. The benefits of leave encashment and KVS Employee Welfare Scheme have already been paid to respondent no.6 being the widow. The nomination in favour of petitioner was made on 21.08.2001 before the marriage and name of spouse was incorporated in the family history on 02.08.2006. Rule 50, 51, 52 & 53 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred as "CCS Rules") deal with nomination made by government servant for the purposes of payment of gratuity. As per rule 33(1)(b) of the General Provident Fund (Central Services Rules) 1960 (hereinafter referred as "GPF Rules"), no nomination was made by the deceased in favour of any person and the amount has become payable to the members of his family in equal share. Succession certificate be granted accordingly.
8. By virtue of replications filed on behalf of the petitioner, contents of the written statements filed by respondent 6 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State no.2, and respondent no. 6 to 8 were denied and averments of the petition were reiterated.
9. Respondent no. 3 i.e. State Bank of India (earlier known as State Bank of Saurashtra) filed reply with respect to saving bank account bearing no. 10901604370, having balance amount of Rs.15,965/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Five only) as on 30.01.2019, in the name of late Sh. Govind Kumar.
Publication
10. Notice of this petition was given to the general public by way of publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' on 22.01.2019. In response to the notice, no person from the general public came forward to offer any objection qua grant of succession certificate to the petitioner.
Examination of witnesses and recording of statements
11. During the summary proceedings conducted as per Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, three witnesses were examined in the form of PW-1 Ms. Radha i.e. Special Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner, PW-2 i.e. Sh. Manoj Rawtani, Finance Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan, respondent no. 2 and RW-1 Smt. Monika i.e. respondent no.6.
12. PW-1 Ms. Radha filed her affidavit of evidence in the form of Ex.PW1/A, wherein she reiterated the contents of the petition 7 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State and relied upon documents Mark A i.e. copy of aadhar card, PAN card of petitioner and PAN card of deceased, Mark B i.e. copy her aadhar card, Ex.PW1/1 i.e. SPA executed by petitioner in her favour; Ex.PW1/2 i.e. copy of computer generated death certificate of deceased, Mark C i.e. copy of bank accounts of Indian Bank and State Bank of India and Mark D i.e. copy of court order dated 23.04.2018. PW-1 was duly cross examined by respondent no.1 and respondent no. 6 to 8.
13. PW-2 Sh. Manoj Rawtani, Finance Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan brought the documents pertaining to death cum retirement gratuity i.e. Rs.17,39,737/-including interest upto October 2019, leave encashment i.e. Rs.3,77,897/-, emoluments i.e. Rs.81,855/- as on 01.01.2018, arrears of pay and allowances i.e. Rs.2,07,905/-, GPF i.e. Rs.39,00,412/- including interest upto October 2019, interest on deposit link insurance scheme accrued upto October 2019 i.e. Rs.7,774/- and attested copy of original nomination form of DCRG. The same were exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/7. PW-2 was cross examined by respondent no. 6 to 8.
14. RW-1 Ms. Monika filed her affidavit of evidence in the form of Ex.RW1/A, wherein she reiterated the contents of the petition and relied upon documents Mark RW1/1 i.e. photocopy of service book issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan consisting of 28 pages, Mark RW1/2 i.e. Form-1 pertaining to Rule 53 (1), nomination for death-cum-retirement gratuity form 8 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State of option and appendix-4 consisting of three pages, Mark RW1/3 i.e. photocopy of F.S. 43098/2017-2018/HQ, certificate dated 03.10.2017 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan, Mark RW1/4 i.e. photocopy of F.S. 430230(3020)2018-KVS (HQ) 1429 dated 03.04.2018 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan, Mark RW1/5 i.e. photocopy of letter dated 08.05.2018, Mark RW1/6 i.e. photocopy of letter dated 30.05.2018 and Ex.RW1/X i.e. copy of statement of account of Indian Bank from 01.01.2017 to 01.01.2018. Respondent no. 1 was briefly cross examined by the petitioner, and at their request, further cross examination was closed on 14.10.2022.
15. Sh. Gajanand Shukal, Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, (who appeared on behalf of respondent no.4) brought the record of statement of account bearing no. 901807443 in the name of Late Sh. Govind Kumar, having balance amount of Rs.14,609.42/-. The same was exhibited as Ex.RX-2.
16. Sh. Rajey Ram, Postal Assistant, Head Post Office, Gaziabad, UP, (who appeared on behalf of respondent no.5) brought the record. His statement was recorded to the effect that postal life insurance amount of late Sh. Govind Kumar in policy no.UA-27625-CC, Plan Santosh-EA to the tune of Rs.7,32,064/- was released to nominee Ms. Monika (respondent no.6) on 01.05.2018 vide cheque bearing no. 38409. The document was exhibited as Ex.RX-1.
9 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State Findings
17. I have heard the final arguments put forth by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 and Ld. Counsel for respondent no.6 to 8, perused the record and gone through the relevant provisions of law.
18. It is an admitted position between the parties that deceased Sh. Govind Kumar expired on 29.01.2018, and the petitioner and respondent no. 6 to 8 are the only known surviving legal heirs of deceased late Sh. Govind Kumar. Testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and RW-1 prove the same. It is further supported by the fact that no one else has come forward to oppose the succession petition despite publication in the newspaper.
19. Reply filed by respondent no. 3 i.e. State Bank of India (earlier known as State Bank of Saurashtra) proves that saving bank account bearing no. 10901604370, having credit balance amount of Rs.15,965/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Five only) as on 30.01.2019, existed in the name of late Sh. Govind Kumar.
20. Statement of Sh. Gajanand Shukal, Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, recorded on behalf of respondent no.4 proves that account bearing no. 901807443, having credit balance of Rs.14,609.42 (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred Nine and Forty-Two paisa only) in the name of deceased late Sh. Govind Kumar, existed with Indian Bank (respondent no.4).
10 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State
21. Statement of Sh. Rajay Ram, Postal Assistant, recorded on behalf of respondent no. 5 proves that amount of Rs.7,32,064/- in respect of policy bearing no. UA27625CC (existing with respondent no.5) has already been released to respondent no.6.
22. The only contentious issue between the parties is with respect to the terminal benefits of deceased with respondent no.2. In this regard, case of the petitioner is that being the nominee in the death-cum-retirement gratuity of the deceased (as per Ex.PW2/7), she is entitled to the said benefits to the exclusion of respondent no. 6 to 8. Further, as there was no nominee in the GPF account of the deceased, she is entitled to ¼ share alongwith respondent no. 6 to 8. On the other hand, stand of respondent no. 6 to 8 is that the petitioner was not dependent on the deceased late Sh. Govind Kumar. The said nomination for death-cum- retirement gratuity was made prior to the marriage of the deceased with respondent no.6 and has now become invalid. On 02.08.2006, name of respondent no. 6 was entered in the service book of the deceased (Ex.PW2/R1) and she was shown as the only dependent of the deceased. Therefore, respondent no. 6 to 8 are entitled to the death cum retirement gratuity benefits as well as GPF benefits, to the exclusion of the petitioner.
23. Following are the service rules referred by the parties in this regard. As per Rule 51 of the CCS Rules-
(a) The gratuity payable under Rule 50 shall paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive 11 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State gratuity is conferred by means of 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 family as in (clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) 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 (clause (vi), (vii), (viii),
(ix), (x) and (xi) of sub rule (6) of Rule 50, to all such members in equal shares.
24. As per the Rule 50(6) and Rule 51, 52 and 53, 'family' in relation to a government servant, means:
(i) wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wife 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 stepsons and adopted sons;
(iv) unmarried daughters including stepdaughters and adopted daughters;
(v) widowed daughters including stepdaughters and adopted daughters;
(vi) father, including adoptive parents in the case of individuals whose personal law permits adoption;
(vii) mother;
(viii) brothers below the age of eighteen years including step-brothers;
(ix) unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including step-sisters;
(x) married daughters, and
(xi) children of a predeceased son.
25. Rule 53 of CCS Rules dealing with nomination states that :
(1) A Government servant shall, on his initial confirmation in a service or post, make a nomination in Form 1 or Form 2 as may be, appropriate in the circumstances of the case, conferring on one or more 12 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State persons the right to receive the retirement gratuity/death gratuity payable Rules 50.
Provided that if at the time of making the nomination-
(i) the Government servant has a family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family; or
(ii) the Government servant has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of a person or persons, or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.
(2) If a Government servant nominates more than one person under sub-rule (1), he shall specify in the nomination the amount of share payable to each of the nominees, in such manner as to cover the entire amount of gratuity.
(3) A Government servant may provided in the nomination-
(i) That in respect of any specified nominee who predeceases the Government servant, or who dies after the death of the Government servant but before receiving the payment of gratuity, the right conferred on that nominee shall pass to such other person as may be specified in the nomination;
Provided that if at the time of making the nomination the Government servant has a family consisting of more than one member, the person so specified shall not be a person other than a member of his family;
Provided further that where a Government servant has only one member in his family, and a nomination has been made in his favour, it is open to the Government servant to nominate alternate nominee or nominees in favour of any person or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not;
(ii) that the nomination shall become invalid in the event of the happening of the contingency provided therein.
(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.
13 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State (5) A Government servant may, at any time, cancel a nomination by sending a notice in writing to the Head of Office;
Provided that he shall, alongwith such notice, send a fresh nomination made in accordance with this rule.
(6) Immediately on the death of a nominee in respect of whom no special provision has been made the nomination under Clause (i) of sub-rule (3) or on the occurrence of any event by reason of which the nomination becomes invalid in pursuance of Clause (ii) of that sub-rule, the Government servant shall send to the Head of Office a notice in writing canceling the nomination together with a fresh nomination made in accordance with this rule.
26. Petitioner relies on Rule 51(a) to contend that a valid nomination exists in favour of petitioner under Rule 53. Respondent no. 6 to 8 contended that once the deceased got married, the earlier nomination made by him in favour of his mother stood canceled in terms of Rule 53(4). Consequently, gratuity is now payable to respondent no. 6 to 8 only in terms of Rule 51(b) (i) as they are covered by definition of 'family' under Rule 50(6)(i) and (iv) whereas petitioner is covered by Rule 50(6)(vii) and is thus excluded.
27. In rebuttal, petitioner contends that even after the marriage of the deceased with respondent no.6, the nomination made by deceased prior to his marriage shall not become invalid since he did not cancel the earlier nomination or file a fresh nomination. For this purpose, reliance was placed on Rule 46(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 which states that:
14 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State "Nomination made by an unmarried Government servant, under clause (i) of sub-rule (2), in favour of any member of his family specified in the explanation below sub-rule (6) of rule 45 shall not become invalid on his or her marriage, unless the Government servant cancels the earlier nomination and files a fresh nomination in accordance with sub-rule (7)."
Application of this rule was resisted by respondent no. 6 to 8 on the ground that the said rule does not have retrospective application.
28. Before proceeding to analyze this issue any further, it is imperative to understand the purpose of nomination made by the deceased. It is settled position of law that purpose of nominee is only for securing quick release of the debts and securities for which nomination is there. Position of nominee is only of a trustee and the said nominee remains liable for distribution of amount released in accordance of law. Usually, nomination remains in favour of one of the legal heirs, but the same in any way does not give him right to use it exclusively to the detriment of those who are entitled to the same. The purpose of nomination, in addition to quick release is, also for giving due discharge to the liability of employer to release the said amount. However, there is no occasion for releasing the amount to the nominee despite grant of succession certificate in favour of other person, if the same had not been released earlier.
29. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta1 wherein, after examining 1 2009 (10) SCC 680; relied upon by S. Sandhya v. The Chief General Manager, judgment 15 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Apex Court held that:
"17. The controversy involved in the instant case is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession. In terms of the factual foundation laid in this case, the deceased died on 08.11.1990 leaving behind his mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. Therefore, on the day when the right of succession opened, the appellant, his widow became entitled to one half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same..............
18. In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount in any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (emphasis supplied)."
30. Similarly, it was held in the case of Suman Kumari @ Suman Singh v. Nand Kishore & Ors2 that :
"17.....The purpose of taking a nomination by an employer is to relieve itself of the obligation to pay the benefits, irrespective of the right of a person who is entitled in law to the Fund. Nomination, in law, cannot be construed as a "Will" of the employee and cannot be treated as a testamentary disposition of the deceased employee with an intent to bestow the benefits on the heirs. Every employee has a right in law to decide how his movable assets should be treated and disbursed in the event of his death and nomination cannot circumscribe the legal rights of disposition of the assets. The purpose of nomination is only to benefit a custodian so as to enable him to know how and to dated 09.04.2012 in W.P. No. 29894/2002 by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras.
2 Judgment dated 06.11.2020 in W.P (C) 6701/2018.
16 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State whom he has to hand over the assets, protecting him from litigations and multiplicity of cases from different people, claiming to be successors to the interest of the employee. Thus, the liability of the employer / custodian is discharged by disbursing the funds to the 'nominee' and thereafter if there is an inter-se disputes between the lawful heirs, they could resort to appropriate remedies for identification of their shares......
18.The nominations are thus to be construed on a different pedestal than a testamentary disposition of the deceased employee and this issue is no longer res integra......(emphasis supplied)".
31. It was further held that :
"28. Having gone through the various judgments as referred to above, I am of the view that the law on the right of a nominee is well settled. The effect of nomination is not to clothe the nominee with a beneficial interest but is only a pointer to the person who is authorized to receive the amount and subsequently the amounts so received would have to be distributed accordingly to the law of succession. It is crystal clear that Nomination cannot override the law of succession as applicable to the parties in question. Therefore, once there is a claim by the heirs of the deceased to his benefits or assets, the same shall devolve on the heirs in accordance with the governing law of succession. There is no right in a nominee to claim ownership to the property in question (emphasis supplied)."
32. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 6 to 8 relied on the case of Smt. Attro v. Smt. Kanta Rai3 to contend that the service benefit of the deceased should pass on to respondent no. 6, being his widow. However, in light of the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta (supra) and Smt. Suman Kumari @ Suman Singh (supra) discussed above, the judgment relied upon by respondent no. 6 to 8 does not further its 3 Judgment dated 01.06.2012 in RSA No.2341/1987 of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
17 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State contention in any manner. Needless to state that the said judgment is delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and is thus not binding on this court in any case.
33. In light of above discussion, it can be safely concluded that nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee and amounts, even if received by the nominee, are finally required to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, irrespective of any nomination, being class-I legal heirs of the deceased, petitioner and respondent no. 6 to 8 are entitled to equal share in the gratuity benefits. Consequently, the question as to whether or not a valid nomination existed in the service record of deceased is not relevant for the grant of succession certificate and accordingly is not being developed into any further.
34. As regard the GPF benefits, it is admitted that there was no nomination in favour of any member of the family. As per Rule 33(1)(b)4 of the GPF Rules, the amount has to be paid to the members of the family5 in equal share. However, as discussed 4 Rule 33 of the GPF Rules envisages:
When the subscriber leaves a family-
(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 his credit in the Fund or that 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.
5 Rule 2 (1)(c) of GPF Rules defines family as:
"Family means - (I) in the case of a male subscriber, the wife or wives, parents, children, 18 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State above, being class-I legal heirs only petitioner and respondent no. 6 to 8 are entitled to equal share in GPF benefits, and no other member of the family.
35. Rest of the service benefits have already been disbursed by respondent no.2. Although during the course of arguments, medical expenses to the tune of Rs.93,462 were also claimed by the petitioner, during cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the medical expenses of the deceased were already reimbursed by respondent no.2.
36. It was also the contention of respondent no.2 that the petitioner is not dependent on the deceased, and petitioner was also cross-examined on this point. Respondent no. 6 as RW-1 also stated during cross-examination that the petitioner was solely dependent on her husband who is a retired government employee and a pensioner and thus is not a legal heir of the deceased. However, it is immaterial for the purposes of calculation of shares of class-I legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act as well as for grant of succession certificate as to whether the petitioner or any other legal heir was dependent on the deceased. Thus, the contention does not hold water.
37. In conclusion, petitioner and respondent no. 6 to 8 (being class-I legal heirs in terms of Section 10 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956) are entitled to equal share in the terminal minor brothers, unmarried sisters, deceased son's widow and children and where no parents of the subscriber is alive, a paternal grandparent."
19 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State benefits of the deceased held with respondent no.2, irrespective of any nomination in his service record.
38. The testimony of PW-2 proves that death cum retirement gratuity, leave encashment, emoluments, arrears of pay and allowances, GPF and interest on deposited link insurance scheme to the tune of Rs.17,39,737/-, Rs.3,77,897/-, Rs.81,855/-, Rs.2,07,905/-, Rs.39,00,412/- and Rs.7,774/- respectively, in the name of deceased late Sh. Govind Kumar existed with Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi (respondent no.2). However, it is an admitted position that amount of leave encashment i.e. Rs.3,20,092/-, KVS EWS i.e. Rs.76,867/-, 50% arrears of 7th CPC i.e. Rs.1,03,952/-, salary for month of January 2018 i.e. Rs.57,005/-, medical bill(s) i.e. Rs.5,526/- have already been released by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.6.
39. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and on the basis of material placed on record, present petition qua the grant of succession certificate is hereby allowed. Accordingly, succession certificate be issued in favour of petitioner, respondent no. 6, respondent no. 7 and respondent no.8 to the extent of ¼ share each, upon filing of requisite court fees and indemnity bond by petitioner and respondent no. 6 (on her behalf as well as on behalf of respondent no. 7 & 8), with one surety, in respect of the following:-
20 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State
(i) death cum retirement gratuity, GPF and interest on deposited link insurance scheme, having credit balance of Rs.17,39,737/-, Rs.39,00,412/- and Rs.7,774/- (with principal amount, if outstanding) respectively, in the name of deceased late Sh. Govind Kumar existing with respondent no.2;
(ii) saving bank account bearing no. 10901604370, having balance amount of Rs.15,965/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Five only) as on 30.01.2019, in the name of late Sh. Govind Kumar, existing with respondent no.3; and
(iii) bank account bearing no. 901807443 in the name of Late Sh. Govind Kumar, having balance amount of Rs.14,609.42/-, existing with respondent no. 4.
40. Ld. Counsel for petitioner prayed that the amounts already released to respondent no.6 be adjusted while releasing the remaining retirement benefits by respondent no.2. However, no order to that effect can be made in this petition and it shall be open to the parties to resort to appropriate civil remedies as per law, to recover such amount, if any.
41. The succession certificate shall be considered only as an entitlement of the petitioner, respondent no.6, 7 and 8 to receive ¼ share each of the amount of aforesaid debts and securities (with up- to-date interest). The succession certificate 21 of 22 SC No. 127/2018 Pushpa Devi v. State shall not be considered as a direction as such to respondent no. 2 to 4 to release the said amounts to the petitioner and respondent no. 6 to 8, and they shall be competent to seek compliance of formalities, if any, by the petitioner and respondent no. 6 for securing release of the said amounts, as per rules.
42. As respondent no. 7 & 8 are minors, succession certificate qua their ¼ share each may also be issued to respondent no.6 in her capacity as natural guardian of respondent no. 7 & 8. However, their respective shares shall be used only for their benefit by respondent no. 6.
43. No order as to costs.
44. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (NEHA PRIYA)
on 10.01.2023 ACJ-CCJ-ARC(South)
Saket Courts/Delhi
22 of 22