Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suruchi vs Dmc on 28 August, 2025
1
Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.3951/2023
Reserved on: 07.08.2025
Pronounced on: 28.08.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Smt. Suruchi,
W/o Late Sh. Vishal Aggarwal,
D/o Sh. Parveen Gupta,
R/o H. No. 226, Near Pili Kothi,
Shivaji Nagar, Narnaul, Haryana - 123001.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ratnesh Bansal)
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Through its General Manager,
Metro Bhawan, 13, Barakhamba Lane,
Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Delhi.
3. Govt. of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,
Economic Advisor, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Sinha)
2
Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present case, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
"(a) The respondent may direct to release the reaming service benefits like pension/family pension, Gratuity/ death Gratuity, fund of insurance/group insurance and all other service benefits of her late husband namely Vishal Aggarwal in favour of petition petitioner/applicant without insisting the applicant/petitioner to obtained succession certificate with her appointment on compensate ground in place ofher late husband thereby to quash and set aside the impunged order/letter dated. 14.08.2023 (Annexure A-1).
A
(b) To award costs in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
(c) pass any other order(s), in favour of the applicants, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of case as well as in the interest of justice."
ju
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant are as under:
2.1. The applicant is the legally wedded wife of Late Vishal Aggarwal, who was serving as a Customer Relations Assistant (CRA) with the Delhi Metro R Rail Corporation Ltd.
(DMRC) in the non-executive non executive category, drawing a pay scale of Rs. 37,000-1,15,000/-
37,000 at the time of his unfortunate and untimely demise. The marriage between the applicant 3 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 and the deceased was duly solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites es and customs, and the same has never been annulled or challenged. The applicant has never re re-married and continues to live as the widow of the deceased employee. The husband of the applicant passed away intestate, without executing any will or testament. He left behind no adopted children, biological children, or surviving parents. The applicant is the only surviving legal heir and was also nominated by the deceased in official records to receive all service-related service related and financial benefits. 2.2. After the sudden demise of her husband, the applicant, being wholly dependent on the deceased, was left in a state of extreme financial and emotional distress. At the time of his death, the applicant was below 30 years of age, unemployed, and had no independent sour source of livelihood, despite being educated and eligible for employment. She is now surviving in near near-starvation conditions, without any meaningful financial support, and is in dire need of assistance from the employer of her late husband.
4
Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 2.3. Soon after the death of Late Vishal Aggarwal, the applicant approached the respondents for release of the terminal benefits, including family pension, gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment, and other dues, as well as for appointment on compassionate grounds, in ac accordance with the applicable DMRC Rules, CCS Pension Rules, and Government directives. The applicant submitted all required documentation, including her identification, proof of marriage, Family ID issued by the Government of Haryana (Annexure A-9), A 9), and a Mutation Certificate (Annexure A-11) A 11) confirming her status as the sole heir. However, instead of granting her rightful dues, the respondents arbitrarily withheld the same, citing an alleged will dated 08.09.2020, purportedly executed by the deceased employee.
employee. The applicant categorically submits that the said will is a forged and fabricated document, never executed or signed by her late husband. An FIR bearing No. 58/2023 (Annexure A-
A-8) has already been registered against the alleged beneficiary and the conc concerned Tehsildar for creation of such false documents. 5
Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 2.4. Learned counsel further submitted that family
pension, gratuity, and group insurance are not part of the estate of a deceased employee and cannot be the subject of a will. In view of binding judgments judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Smt. Violet Issac vs Union of India (1991 SCR (1) 282) and SK Mastan Bee vs General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway, CA No. 8089/2002, such benefits are statutory entitlements of the widow and cannot be withheld on on the basis of a will or succession certificate.
2.5. Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that as per Rule 1.3 of the DMRC Rules, as well as Rule 54 of the CCS Pension (Rules) 1972, the widow is recognized as a dependent family member entitled to receiv receive pension and related benefits. Moreover, Rule 1.3 of the DMRC Rules clearly defines the dependent family members as including
(i) spouse, (ii) son, (iii) daughter, and (iv) brother/sister in the case of an unmarried employee. In the present case, the applicant icant falls squarely within the definition of dependent and legal heir.
6
Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 2.6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the respondents have unjustifiably withheld the appointment and benefits, under the misguided pretext of requiring a succession certificate, certificate, which is not only contrary to law but also contrary to established principles of natural justice. It is a settled position of law that a succession certificate is not required for the disbursement of service benefits, including pension and insurance, insurance, as these are governed by statutory rules and not the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 2.7. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite repeated representations and legal notices, the respondents have failed to take a lawful, awful, fair, or compassionate view of the matter. Their inaction and arbitrary denial of rights is a violation of Articles 14, 16(2), 21, and 38 of the Constitution of India and is reflective of administrative arbitrariness. Learned counsel added that the applicant is a woman of good character, well qualified, and fully fit to discharge duties under any post offered on compassionate grounds. She has complied with all procedural requirements, and yet the respondents, through an illegal and biased order dated 7 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 14.08.2023, have denied the relief prayed for in the present O.A.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as no enforceable enforceable right or binding rule has been infringed by the actions of the respondents, and therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed in limine. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Delhi, AIR 2006 SC 2609.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has sought multiple reliefs in a single Original Application, i.e., both for remaining service/death benefits and for compassionate appointment, which is contrary to Rule 10 of the e CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and hence, not maintainable in the present form.
3.2. Learned counsel admitted that Late Vishal Aggarwal was working as a Customer Relations Assistant in the DMRC and had nominated the applicant (his spouse) as the nominee in official records. Based on this nomination, 8 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 several benefits have already been disbursed in her favour, including:
Funeral assistance: Rs. 10,000 Ex-gratia:
gratia: Rs. 10,000 Leave encashment/salary: Rs. 1,60,097 EDLI: Rs. 7,02,000 Voluntary employee contribution: Rs. 38,500 EPF: Rs. 6,94,390 Total disbursed amount: Rs. 16,14,987 However, the remaining service benefits, namely Life Insurance (Rs. 20 lakhs) and Gratuity (Rs. 12,84,212) have not been disbursed owing to multiple competing claims.
3.3. Learned counsel submitted that one, Mr. Ashok Kumar and Mrs. Anita Devi have approached the respondents claiming to be the biological parents of the deceased, who had allegedly been given in adoption to his uncle Mr. Shiv Shankar. They have also produced a an alleged will dated 08.09.2020, claimed to be executed in their favour, which was registered only after the death of 9 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 Late Vishal Aggarwal, on 16.01.2023. In light of these competing claims, the respondents sought legal advice and were advised to withhold further disbursal of benefits until a succession certificate is produced by either of the parties.
Accordingly, both the applicant and the contesting claimants have been asked to approach the competent authority for issuance of such a certificate. Learned counsel further submitted that:
No final decision has been taken regarding compassionate appointment, as the matter is sub judice before the District Court, Narnaul, Haryana.
The deceased was not a member of BPS or NPS, and hence, no family pension is admi admissible as per DMRC rules.
All actions taken by DMRC have been in strict compliance with applicable rules and procedures, and no rule has been violated.
A stay order was passed by the District Court on 24.02.2023, restraining DMRC from disbursing further benefits be to any claimant.10
Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 3.4. In view of the above, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Original Application lacks merit, is premature, and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel el for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Will being relied upon by the contesting claimants is forged and fabricated, never signed by the deceased employee. It is stated that the signature on the alleged will does not tally tally with that of the deceased, and an FIR No. 58/2023 under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC has been registered against the alleged beneficiaries and others involved in its preparation. Learned counsel asserted that the applicant is the legally wedded wife wife of Late Vishal Aggarwal, who died intestate and she is also the nominee for service benefits and, therefore, entitled to receive all pending benefits, including gratuity and group insurance, without the requirement of a succession certificate. It is fur further submitted that the civil dispute filed by the alleged claimants has already been settled by order dated 11 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 14.09.2024, whereby the service benefits were agreed to be released in favour of the applicant. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitu vs. Sila Rani & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9823/2016) to assert that only the widow is entitled to pensionary benefits of the deceased husband.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings pleadings available on record, we would draw the following analysis:
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 From the above factual matrix, what emerges is that it is not in dispute that a stay order was passed by the District Court on 24.02.2023, restraining DMRC from disbursing further further benefits to any claimant. Consequently, the payment of retirement dues was halted.
6.2 The civil dispute filed by the alleged claimants has already been settled by order dated 14.09.2024, whereby the service benefits were agreed to be released in favor of the applicant.12
Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 6.3 It is also not in dispute that the applicant had settled the dispute pertaining to the payment of retiral dues, and an amicable settlement has been arrived at among the parties/legal heirs. Hence, there appears to be no impediment at this stage to the release of the balance dues.
It is further an admitted position that the applicant was recorded as the nominee in the official records, and payments were being made to her until the passing of the interim order by the Court.
6.4 It is also also not the case of the respondents that the settlement arrived at during the pendency of litigation is either invalid or in violation of any provisions of the law in force.
6.5 In Smt. Violet Issac and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. decided on 08.02.1991, (1991) 1 SCC 282, the Apex Court held as under:
"Whether family pension payable under the service rules could be bequeathed by means of a will by the deceased employee during his life time, is the question involved in this appeal.
Briefly, the facts facts giving rise to this appeal are that, Issac Alfred was employed in the Railway Workshop, Jagadhri as a Skilled Mechanic, Tool Shop, he died in harness on 13 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 16.10.1984. On his death a dispute arose between Mrs. Violet Issac, widow of the deceased Railway e employee, his sons, daughters and Elic Alfred, brother of the deceased regarding family pension, gratuity and other emoluments, payable by the Railway Administration. Smt. Violet Issac, widow of the deceased employee made an application before the competent Railway Authority for the grant of family pension and for payment of gratuity and other dues to her, her four sons and one daughter, who are appellant Nos. 2 to 6. The Railway Authorities did not pay any amount to the appellants as an injunction order had been issued by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Jagadhri in Civil Suit No. 365/85 filed by Elic Alfred, brother of the deceased employee, restraining the appellants from claiming or receiving any amount which were to the credit of the deceased Railway employee ttowards C.T.D. Account, gratuity, family pension and other dues. It appears that the relations between late Issac Alfred and his widow Smt. Violet Issac and the children were not cordial, as a result of which he had made nomination in favour of his brother and further he had executed a will dated 9.9.1984 in favour of Elic Alfred bequeathing all his properties to him including the family pension, gratuity etc. When the appellants raised claim for family pension and other dues before the Railway Authorities, Elic Alfred filed Civil Suit No. 365/85 for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from receiving or claiming any monetary benefits from the Railway Administration. In his suit Elic Alfred had pleaded that in view of the will, his deceased deceased brother's widow and children were not entitled to any benefit from the Railway Authorities, instead he was entitled to the deceased's estate including the right to receive family pension and other dues. The Civil Court issued an injunction order restraining the appellants from receiving any amount from restraining the Railway Authorities as a result of which the Railway Administration did not pay any amount to them. The appellants, thereupon, made an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chand Chandigarh for the issue of a direction for the release of the amounts on account of gratuity, group insurance, provident fund, CTD account, and family pension. The appellants pleaded that the will relied upon by Elic Alfred was a forged one and Elic Alfred was not entitled to receive pensionary benefits. On an application made by the appellants the suit pending before the Civil Court was also transferred to the Tribunal's file. The Tribunal by its order dated 11. 12.1989 held that since the dispute related to rival rival claims based on title arising from relationship in one case and from a will in the 14 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 other, it has no jurisdiction to decide the same. The Tribunal further directed for the transfer of the civil suit to the Civil Court for trial in accordance with law. The appellants have challenged the order of the Tribunal by means of the present appeal.
The dispute between the parties relates to gratuity, provident fund, family pension and other allowances, but this Court while issuing notice to the respondents confi confined the dispute only to family pension. We would therefore deal with the question of family pension only. Family Pension Rules 1964 provide for the sanction of family pension to the survivors of a Railway Employee. Rule 801 provides that family pension sha shall be granted to the widow/widower and where there is no widow/widower to the minor children of a Railway servant who may have died while in service. Under the Rules son of the deceased is entitled to family pension until he attains the age of 25 years, an unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension till she attains the age of 25 years or gets married, which ever is earlier. The Rules do not provide for payment of family pension, to brother or any other family member or relation of the deceased Ra Railway employee. 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. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no-
no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The Family Pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the 'w 'wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee has no title to it. The employee has no 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 framed by the Railway Administration to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee. Since, the Rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his life time for the payment of family pension, he has no title to the same. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition.
In Jodh Singh v. Union of India & Anr.
Anr., [ 1980] 4 SCC 306 this Court on an elaborate discussion held that family pension is admissible on account of the status of a widow and not on account of the fact that there was some estate 15 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow. The Court observed:
"Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and a status that is acquired on the happening of certain event, namely, on becoming a widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate estate of the deceased. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition. The Court further held that what was not payable during the life time of the deceased over which he had no power of disposition could not form part of his estate. Since the qualifying event occurs on the death of the deceased for the payment of family pension, monetary benefit of family pension cannot form part of the estate of the deceased entitling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition.
We, accordingly hold that Mrs. Violet Issac the widow of the deceased Railway employee is entitled to receive the family pension, notwithstanding, the will alleged to have been executed by the deceased on 9.9.1984 in favour of his brother Elic Alfred. As regards appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, it has been stated on behalf of the Railway Administration that they are not minors, therefore, under the Rules they are not not entitled to any family pension. We, accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the respondent Railway Adminstration to sanction family pension in accordance with the Rules to the appellant No. 1 and to pay the arrears w within two months. The respondent's suit, so far as it relates to the family pension cannot proceed but we do not express any opinion, with regard to other claims raised therein.
It has been brought to our notice on behalf of the respondent Railway Administration that the appellants have been occupying the Railway quarter which had been allotted to late Issac Alfred, even though they are not entitled to occupy the same. On behalf o of the appellants, it was urged that since they had not been paid any dues by the Railway Administration they were not in a position to vacate the premises. The Railway Administration is free to evict them in accordance with the Rules, only after arrears 16 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 of family pension are paid to Mrs. Violet Issac. The Railway Administration will charge rent from the appellants at the rate on which the quarter had been let out to the deceased Railway employee. There will be no order as to costs."
6.6 In Banarsi Dass vs. v Teeku Dutta reported in AIR ONLINE 2005 SC 87, 87, the Apex Court held as under:
"The The main object of a Succession Certificate is to facilitate collection of debts on succession and afford protection to parties paying debts to representatives of deceased persons. All that the Succession Certificate purports to do is to facilitate the collection of debts, to regulate the administration of succession and to protect persons who deal with the alleged representatives of the deceased persons. Such a certificate does not give any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased. The grant of a certificate does not establish title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased. A Succession Certificate is intended as noted above to protect the debtors, whi which means that where a debtor of a deceased person either voluntarily pays his debt to a person holding a Certificate under the Act, or is compelled by the decree of a Court to pay it to the person, he is lawfully discharged. The grant of a certificate does not establish a title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased, but only furnishes him with authority to collect his debts and allows the debtors to make payments to him without incurring any risk. In order to succeed in the succession application the a applicant has to adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of the application. The respondents, if they so chooses, can also adduce evidence to oppose grant grant of succession certificate.
certificate."
6.7 In C.K. Prahalada and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2008 2008 (15) SCC 577), the Apex Court held as under:
""A A succession certificate is granted for a limited purpose. A Court granting a succession certificate does not decide the question of title. A nominee or holder of succession certificate has a duty to hand over the property to the 17 Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 person who has a legal title title thereto. By obtaining a succession certificate alone, a person does not become the owner of the property."
6.8. The respondents ought to release the balance of the retiral dues to which the applicant is entitled on the strength of the certified copy of of the settlement and the order of the Court accepting such settlement, with an indemnity to protect the interests of organization to future litigation.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 14.08.2023. We further direct the respondents to release the balance retiral dues of the applicant's late husband, namely Late Vishal Aggarwal, in favour of the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. F Failing compliance within the stipulated period, the applicant shall be entitled to interest at the GPF rate for the period of delay.
7.2. The O.A. is allowed to this limited extent.18
Item No. 87 (C-5) O.A. No.3951/2023 7.3. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/