Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Nitu vs Sheela Rani And Ors on 28 September, 2016

Smt. Pushpa Devi vs The State on 6 June, 2018

Thus, it is held that it is only the petitioner and respondent namely Phoolwati (being mother of the deceased) are entitled to the estate of  the deceased.   Since, Smt. Phoolwati has died during the pendency   of   the   present   petition   and   her   legal   heirs   namely   Smt. Santosh, Smt. Leelawati, Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, Sh. Ashok Kumar @ Billu and Sh. Sunil Kumar have been impleaded, hence, the share of Smt, Phoolwati shall be distributed amongst her legal heirs.   \ Petition no. SC/32794/16                                         24 As per pension rules, the family of a deceased employee does not include his mother, hence, its only the wife of the deceased, who will be entitled to the family pension or arrears of family pension. Reliance being placed on pension rules and a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case titled as  Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani 2016 X AD (SC) 149.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

I.Jayaraj vs G.Dhanaraj (Died) on 25 September, 2020

45. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased Soundari, wife of the appellant, has nominated the appellant as the sole nominee, that has not been disputed by anyone. Therefore, when the appellant being the husband of the deceased Soundari, by virtue of Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules read with Rule 49(8)(ii), the 9/15 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.3431 of 2019 family pension shall become payable to the widower. This rule position has been vividly explained by the Apex Court also in the judgment in Nitu v. Sheela Rani and others, (2016) 16 SCC 229, wherein, in paragraph-17, it has been observed as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

Chandira vs P.Bhanu on 20 April, 2018

In the decision reported in (2016) 16 Supreme Court Cases 229 ( Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani and others), while dealing with the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 of the Punjab Government holding that as per the relevant rules, the mother not being included in the definition of the family, was not entitled to receive the pension on the footing that she is also one of the Class-1 heirs as provided under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and the position of law, as regards the same, has been elucidated by the apex Court in the following manner:
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

Smt. Suman Wd/O Mahadeorao Wagh vs Smt. Leelabai Wd/O Mahadeorao Wagh And ... on 30 August, 2018

Though it was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of the Act of 1956 have been made inapplicable in the matter of grant of pension, the said judgment indicates that it has been held therein that the rights of the parties would be governed by the relevant Scheme and only the person entitled as per that Scheme would get the pension. It is not the ratio of that decision that the provisions of Act of ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2018 22:58:09 ::: 8-J-SA-92-18.--odt 8/10 1956 have been made inapplicable in the matter of grant of family pension. Be that as it may, the ratio of this decision does not take the case of the appellant any further in view of the fact that the provisions of Rule 116(6)
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Shri Sukh Charan Singh And Ors vs Mohinder Kaur And Ors on 29 October, 2024

67. Respondent No. 3(a) relied upon judgment in case titled as "Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9823/2016" wherein RCA No. 14/24 Page No. 55 of 82 Sukh Charan Singh & Ors Vs. Mohinder Kaur & Ors Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "So far as the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are concerned, it is true that the properties of a Hindu, who dies intestate would first of all go to the persons enumerated in Class-I of the Schedule as per the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act and therefore, so far as the properties of Late Shri Yash Pal are concerned, they would be divided among the respondent mother and appellant wife, provided there is no other family member of Late Shri Yash Pal alive, who would fall within Class-I heirs, but position in this case, with regard to pension is different."
Delhi District Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suruchi vs Dmc on 28 August, 2025

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.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next