Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpal Singh And Others vs Navjeet Kaur And Others on 11 November, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2816 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11th November, 2013
Harpal Singh and others
Appellants
Versus
Navjeet Kaur and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for the appellants.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed.
One Didar Singh, who was working in BSF, died on 04.09.2004. Defendants No.1 and 2 are wife and son respectively of said Didar Singh. Plaintiffs Parkash Kaur and Karam Singh, who are his mother and father respectively, have filed the instant suit claiming that they were legally entitled to receive all the service benefits of their deceased son Didar Singh and defendants No.1 and 2 were not entitled to any relief as defendant No.1 was divorced as per customs. Singh Rattan Pal 2013.11.14 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.2816 of 2013 (O&M) 2
Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit. Defendants No.1 and 2, in their joint written statement apart from raising various preliminary objections, submitted that defendant No.1 was the nominee of deceased Didar Singh and defendant No.2 being his son were entitled to pensionary benefits under the Rules. It was further submitted that plaintiffs were healthy persons and can maintain themselves very well. It was further submitted that defendants No.1 and 2 were the only legal heirs of deceased and were totally dependent upon him. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
Defendants No.3 and 4 filed separate written statement submitting that as per the Family Details Form and Nomination Form submitted in September 2000 by deceased Didar Singh, defendant No.1 was his nominee. It was further submitted that in case the deceased leaves behind widow, then the said widow is entitled to family pension as per Rule 54 of CCS Pension Rules and there is nothing on record to show that Didar Singh had divorced his wife i.e. defendant No.1, and therefore, defendant No.1 was entitled to family pension. However, parents of the deceased were entitled to other benefits as per the aforesaid Rule. It was further submitted that payment will be made as per the nomination made by the deceased and the Rules.
After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 10.02.2010 dismissed the suit. Even the appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also Singh Rattan Pal 2013.11.14 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.2816 of 2013 (O&M) 3 dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 03.04.2013. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court read thus:
"14. There is no dispute regarding relationship between the appellant-plaintiff as well as respondent- defendants. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has only argued on the point of disbursement of DCRG and SPBY. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has pointed out that the wife is not entitled 100% DCRG and SPBY rather mother is entitled 50% out of DCRG and SPBY. Therefore, the findings of the learned lower Court on all the issues are wrong.
15. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff because the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to receive the pensionary benefits. Secondly as per family detail form and nomination form dated September, 2000 submitted by the deceased Didar Singh, respondent-defendant No.1 is his nominee. The deceased leave behind widow who is entitled 100% family pension as per Rule 54 of CCS Pension Rules and as per record of the deceased the benefits can be given as under:
1. Pension 100% wife
2. D.C.R.G. 100% wife
3. G.P.F. 50% wife & 50% mother
4. S.P.B.Y. 100% wife
5. C.G.E.I.S. 50% wife & 50% mother A perusal of the testimonies produced by the witnesses and documents on record it is clear that the deceased had nominated defendant No.1 as his nominee and in some categories he has nominated his mother also.
Since respondent-defendant No.1 is the wife of deceased, Singh Rattan Pal 2013.11.14 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.2816 of 2013 (O&M) 4 therefore, she is 100% entitled for pension as well as D.C.R.G. and respondent-defendant No.2 son of the deceased is also entitled 50% G.P.F. and 50% C.G.E.I.S. As such the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to whole pensionary benefits rather the respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 who are the Class I heirs are entitled the pensinoary benefits of the deceased Didar Singh."
At the outset it may be noticed that the only dispute in the suit is with regard to disbursement of the benefits relating to DCRG and SPBY (Seema Prahari Bima Yojna). However, it could not be disputed before this Court that as per Rule 54 of CCS Pension Rules, the aforesaid benefits are to be disbursed to the nominee of the deceased. It is further not in dispute that as per the documents submitted before the respondent-authorities by Didar Singh (since deceased) himself, defendant No.1 is his nominee. It may further be noticed that Pension Rules of the respondents are not under challenge in the instant civil suit. It is further to be noticed that there is nothing on record to suggest that Didar Singh (since deceased) had ever divorced his wife i.e. defendant No.1.
Further it could not be disputed before this Court that Karam Singh-plaintiff No.2, who is a Class II legal heir being father of the deceased, was not entitled to any benefits to the estate of Didar Singh (since deceased) even under the Hindu Succession Act, in the presence of Class I heirs.
At this stage, it may also be noticed that plaintiff No.1 Parkash Kaur, mother of the deceased, had died after filing of the Singh Rattan Pal 2013.11.14 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.2816 of 2013 (O&M) 5 instant suit and the present appellants were brought on record as her Legal Representatives. It further could not be disputed before this Court that the aforesaid Legal Representatives have no independent right to the estate of Didar Singh (since deceased) in the presence of defendants No.1 and 2. No right to sue survives in the appellants to pursue this appeal on behalf of Parkash Kaur after her death.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below as no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
No other argument has been raised.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE November 11, 2013 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2013.11.14 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court