Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 189 (MEG)

Samira Begum v. Union of India

2014-08-12

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2014
Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a direction to the respondents to disburse the family pension as well as gratuity of (L) Binod Poddar in favour of the petitioner. 2. None appears for the petitioner without showing any cause. Heard Mr. R Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. SP Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Pde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 3. The concise fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition which would be sufficient for deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition is noted. 4. (L) Binod Poddar was working in the office of the respondent No. 2 in the capacity of Safaiwala, which is a Grade-IV post. The petitioner is the wife of (L) Binod Poddar. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, Binod Poddar expired on 05.10.2011 while (L) Binod Poddar was in service. After the death of (L) Binod Poddar, the petitioner being the widow of (L) Binod Poddar approached the respondent No. 2 with a written representation dated 24.11.2011 for disbursement of family pension as well as other securities in favour of the petitioner. It is also stated that on 19.04.2012, the petitioner again submitted a representation that (L) Binod Poddar had nominated the petitioner as his wife for payment of provident fund and death gratuity. The petitioner also further stated that the petitioner's maiden name prior to her marriage was Samira Begum but after the marriage her name was changed as Rasho Devi and also her marriage with (L) Binod Poddar was according to Hindu rites and customs. 5. The Chief Executive Officer i.e. respondent No. 2 under his letter dated 19.04.2012 directed the petitioner to submit necessary documentary evidence in support of her claims that the petitioner is the wife of (L) Binod Poddar. It is also stated in the writ petition that for obtaining the succession certificate from the competent court of law, the petitioner had requested the respondent No. 2 to provide the details of the debts and securities of (L) Binod Poddar. But the respondent No. 2 had failed to furnish the details of the debts and securities of (L) Binod Poddar and as a result, the petitioner could not obtain the succession certificate from the competent court of law. But the respondent No. 2 had failed to furnish the details of the debts and securities of (L) Binod Poddar and as a result, the petitioner could not obtain the succession certificate from the competent court of law. The petitioner has no alternative except to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to disburse the family pension as well as gratuity of (L) Binod Poddar in favour of the petitioner. 6. The respondent No. 2 had filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, it is stated that the petitioner had submitted an affidavit dated 23.04.2012 only after the death of (L) Binod Poddar claiming that Samira Begum (writ petitioner) is the same person i.e. Smti. Rasho Devi. The petitioner had stated in the writ petition that her name "Smti. Samira Begum" had been changed as "Smti. Rasho Devi", after her marriage with (L) Binod Poddar according to Hindu customary rites and rituals. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 2, it is stated that the petitioner had been directed under different letters to obtain the succession certificate from the competent court of law. One of the letters of the respondents to the writ petitioner i.e. dated 29.04.2013 reads as follows:- "Telephones 0321 (Mily) 2223929(Civil) No. SHG/8/Binod Poddar/ office of the Cantonment Board Post Box No. 83, Shillong-793001 Dated the 29th April, 2013. To, Smti. Samira Begum, Qtr No. 10 Jhalupara Shillong Cantt. Sub: Prayer for Disbursing The Family Pension and Other Securities Left Behind By Late Binod Poddar, Safiawala. Reference this officer letter No. SHG/8/Binod Poddar/dated 24th September 2012. You were asked to submit a succession certificate from a competent court of law vide letter under reference for releasing the Death benefits, pensionary benefits, Debts and Securities due to (L) Binod Poddar which has not yet been received by this office. You are hereby once again directed to submit a succession certificate from a competent court of law within 7 days from receipt of this letter failing which this office will not be responsible for non payment of due of (L) Binod Poddar. Sd/- Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Cantt. S. Prabakaran, IDES." 7. The respondent No. 2 also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the writ petitioner could not submit succession certificate from the competent court of law. Sd/- Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Cantt. S. Prabakaran, IDES." 7. The respondent No. 2 also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the writ petitioner could not submit succession certificate from the competent court of law. Shri. Langroo Poddar, father of (L) Binod Poddar had submitted the succession certificate from the competent court of law and after taking advice in the matter as per the succession certificate dated 03.04.2013, the gratuity and other financial benefits of (L) Binod Poddar were released to Shri. Langroo Poddar. The copy of the succession certificate dated 03.04.2013 produced by the father of (L) Binod Poddar is available at Annexure-3 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 2 and it reads as follows:- "High Court Form No. (J) 55 Succession Certificate (Section 377 of the Succession Certificate Act, 1925) In The Court Of Deputy Commissioner Judicial: At Shillong. Intest (S/C) Case No. 52(T) 2012. To, Shri Langru Poddar, S/o (L) Bini Madhav Poddar, 29 Cantonment Area, Shillong East Khasi Hills District Meghalaya WHEREAS you applied on the 12th day of July 2012 for a certificate in part I of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in the matter of the Estate of (L) Binod Poddar deceased, in respect of the following debts and securities, namely:- This certificate is accordingly granted to you and empowers you to collect those debts, and- (1) To receive interest or dividends on the amount under the certificate. (2) To negotiate or transfer the said amount. (3) Both the receive interest or dividends on and to negotiate or transfer the said debt or any of them. Dated this 3rd day of April 2013 Enclosed:- India Court Fee Stamps Sheets Total = 4280/- Sd/- D.C. Judicial, East Khasi Hills, Shillong. Deputy Commissioner Judicial East Khasi Hills." 8. Mr. SP Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 contended that the present writ petition is not the proper forum for seeking the remedy sought for therein inasmuch as, there is serious disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner is the wife of (L) Binod Poddar and also that so long as the succession certificate dated 03.04.2013, which had been quoted above in extenso is still in force, the relief sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted. The petitioner could take necessary steps prescribed under the law for challenging the said succession certificate. 9. The petitioner could take necessary steps prescribed under the law for challenging the said succession certificate. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted in favour of the writ petitioner. However, it is left to the writ petitioner to challenge the said succession certificate by taking recourse to the procedures prescribed under the law. 10. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.