Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 848 (AP)

R. Rajeswaramma v. C. Sada Varalakshmi

2004-08-16

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2004
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS CMA is filed questioning the order, dated 7. 5. 2003, passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, in o. P. No. 41of 1999. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent is the wife and the 2nd respondent is the son of late Ravuri srihari Rao, who was employed as Senior auditor in the South Central Railway. Sri Srihari Rao died on 31. 10. 1998. Respondents submitted a claim before the concerned authority for payment of pension and other benefits. Similar claim was made by the appellants, who are the sister and brother, respectively, of the deceased employee. It was in this context, the respondents filed the O. P. , under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, before the trial Court, for grant of succession certificate so as to enable them to receive pension and other benefits of the deceased employee. The Trial Court decreed the O. P. , and held that the Respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to receive the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee. ( 3 ) SRI K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the O. P. , since it related to the service benefits of the deceased employee. Placing reliance upon sections 14 and 3 (q) of the Administrative tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), learned Counsel submits that the jurisdiction of all the Courts except that of the Supreme Court is ousted in relation to adjudication of disputes touching on service matters relating to Central government employees. It is his contention that payment of pension comes within the definition of "service Matters" under section 3 (q) of the Act, and the O. P. , itself was not maintainable. He also contends that being the dependants of the deceased employee, the appellants were also entitled to be recognized as successors along with respondents 1 and 2. ( 4 ) SRI V. R. Reddy Kowuri, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that grant of succession certificate does not involve any adjudication of the quantum of the benefits payable to a deceased employee or liability of the 3rd respondent to pay the service benefits of the deceased employee, and that it relates only to the entitlement to receive it. He submits that such a matter cannot be brought within the scope of the administrative Tribunal. He contends that the appellants were already married and were not dependant upon the deceased at all, and as such, they are not entitled to be treated as successors of the deceased employee along with Respondents 1 and 2. ( 5 ) THE necessity for the Respondents 1 and 2 to file the O. P. , under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, arose on account of the death of late Srihari Rao, who was employed in the South Central Railway. The appellants came forward with a plea that they too were entitled to be paid the pensionary benefits. Before the Trial Court, pws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A. 1 to A. 10 were marked on behalf of the respondents herein. The appellants herein were examined as RWs. 1 and 2, respectively, and Exs. B. 1 to B. 25 were marked on their behalf. The Trial Court took the view that respondents 1 and 2 alone are entitled to be recognized as the legal heirs of the deceased employee. Though the relationship of appellants with the deceased was not in dispute, they were not recognized as legal heirs, because they were married and were not dependant upon the deceased. ( 6 ) THE main objection raised by the appellants is as to the maintainability of the o. P. , itself, in view of the provisions of the act. Section 14 of the said Act ousts the jurisdiction of all the Courts except that of the Supreme Court to adjudicate the service matters in relation to recruitment etc. , to All india Service or to any civil service of the union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services filled by a civilian. It also ousts the jurisdiction in relation to "service Matters" concerning such employee. , to All india Service or to any civil service of the union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services filled by a civilian. It also ousts the jurisdiction in relation to "service Matters" concerning such employee. The term "service Matters" is defined in section 3 (q) of the Act as under: section 3 (q): "service Matters", in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any state or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case maybe, of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government, as respects (I) Remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever. ( 7 ) A reading of this provision indicates that the expression "service matter" includes in itself the several aspects and incidences of service of the category of employees covered by the Act. Such matters include recruitment, disciplinary proceedings, payment of remuneration, pension and retirement benefits etc. The entitlement of an employee, to receive pension and retirement benefits, squarely falls within the definition. If an employee is denied the pension or other retirement benefits, he has to work out the remedies before the Administrative Tribunal constituted under Act. If any employee is dead either while in service or after retirement, and there exists any dispute as to whether any benefits were extendible on account of his death, such questions are also required to be adjudicated by the administrative Tribunal alone. However, where there is no dispute as to the benefits payable on account of the death of an employee, and the controversy is as to who, the persons to receive such benefits, are, the same cannot be brought within the purview of service matters, as defined under section 3 (q ). The various persons laying a claim for such benefits have to resolve their disputes in accordance with law of succession, applicable to the employee, or on the basis of any testament, if made by the deceased-employee. The various persons laying a claim for such benefits have to resolve their disputes in accordance with law of succession, applicable to the employee, or on the basis of any testament, if made by the deceased-employee. For this purpose, the concerned parties have to approach the civil Courts for grant of succession certificate. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the 3rd respondent, the employer of late Srihari rao did not dispute the entitlement of his successors to receive the service benefits. It was only confronted with a situation of conflicting claims by the Respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and the appellants on the other. In the absence of adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the 3rd respondent was in fact, helpless in passing on the benefits. Hence, the O. P. , filed by the Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The appellants did not raise this objection before the Trial Court. They raised an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court. However, being a pure question of law, it can be permitted to be raised in this C. M. A. ( 9 ) IN view of the discussion undertaken above, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the Trial Court is barred by operation of Section 14 of the Act ( 10 ) COMING to the merits of the matter, it is not in dispute that the appellants were married and were not at all dependent upon the deceased-employee by the time he died. It is only the unmarried brothers and sisters that can be treated as the dependants and successors of a person, on his death. Once these facts are not in dispute, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the trial Court. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the judgment and decree under appeal. ( 11 ) THE CMA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.