Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1364 (ALL)

Kusum Devi v. M. D. , Food Corporation of India

2016-04-12

UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Kusum Devi w/of Late Atma Ram is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 41491 of 2008 (Nitin Choudhary & others Vs. Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & others) wherein directives have been issued asking Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'FCI') to revisit and reconsider the matter and further payment be made to the contesting factions to abide by the final decision Corporation now proceed to take. 2. The factual situation, that is so emerging in the present case, is that Atma Ram was an employee with the FCI and Atma Ram during his life time had married twice. From the first matrimonial alliance three sons namely Nitin Choudhary, Vipin Choudhary and Sachin Choudhary were born alongwith one daughter namely Nidhi Choudhary. The first wife, pre-deceased and this much has come on record that Atma Ram entered into matrimonial alliance with the appellant Kusum Devi and out of the said wedlock issues are also there. Atma Ram had died on 21.6.2008 and, thereafter, for post death benefits of Late Atma Ram dispute has been started. 3. Writ Petition No. 41491 of 20088 was preferred by the heirs of the first wife of Late Atma Ram with the prayer that all post death benefits be paid to them and their claim for compassionate appointment be also considered and Writ Petition No. 16054 of 2010 has been filed by the same petitioners assailing the validity of the order dated 17.2.2010 by which their claim for compassionate appointment has come to be rejected. In the said proceedings that is the first writ petition an application for intervention has been made on behalf of Smt. Kusum Devi describing herself to be the second wife of Late Atma Ram and she has been permitted to participate in the proceedings in question. In the said proceedings that is the first writ petition an application for intervention has been made on behalf of Smt. Kusum Devi describing herself to be the second wife of Late Atma Ram and she has been permitted to participate in the proceedings in question. This much is clear from the record in question that as far as grant of compassionate appointment is concerned and as far as grant of other benefits are concerned, same have been directed to be attain finality and the issue that has been discussed by the learned Single Judge in its final order dated 26.11.2015 is to the effect that issue of payment of retiral benefits to the nominee and distribution amongst the heirs of Late Atma Ram needs to be revisited and reconsidered by the FCI. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Lal Babu Lal submitted that in the present case appellant Kusum Devi being nominee of Late Atma Ram has every right to collect the amount and, thereafter, the distribution has to be done through the court and not in the way and manner, as has been directed by learned Single Judge in the order dated 26.11.2015, in view of this, special appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has also placed by him on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Vinod Kumar & others for the proposition that misplaced sympathy has been shown in the present case whereas the conduct of sons from the first wife of Late Atma Ram has disentitled them to get any amount in question. 5. The claim in question has been resisted by Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava, Advocate as well as Sri Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate, by submitting that rightful view has been taken by the learned Single Judge and no interference be made by this Court and special appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation that is so emerging in the present case is that Atma Ram, who was an employee with the FCI, had died and after his death the post death benefits in question were being claimed by his sons from the first wife as well as by his second wife on behalf of herself and children. This much is clearly reflected that by order dated 17.2.2010 claim of Nitin Choudhary and others has been rejected and benefit of compassionate appointment has been extended to the son of Kusum Devi. Nitin Choudhary and others have been insisting that they are entitled to get share in the post death benefits of their late father. The learned Single Judge, at the point of time, when he has proceeded to pass the order, has proceeded to make a mention that the appellant and FCI does not dispute the fact that the petitioner respondents were the progeny from the first wife of Late Atma Ram and they would be entitled to get share in the retiral benefits of Late Atma Ram and what was being submitted was that the FCI, on the one hand, requires the petitioner respondents to furnish a succession certificate or a decree of civil court that they established that they are the legal heirs of Late Atma Ram. 7. Learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue of payment of retiral benefits of deceased employee and position of nominee in law as law on the subject has been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Sarbati Devi and another Vs. Smt. Usha Devi, 1984 (1) SCC 424 , as reiterated in the case of Vishin Lachmandas Khanchandani and another, 2000 (6) SCC 724 and in Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and others, 2010 (2) AWC 1492, wherein consistent view has been taken that the act of nomination does not confer or clothe the nominee with any beneficial interest in the amount payable and the nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The rights of the nominee thus stands crystallized but here the undisputed position is neither the Corporation nor the appellant Kusum Devi denied the fact that Nitin Choudhary and others were the legal heirs from the first wife of Late Atma Ram. The learned Single Judge found that FCI has failed to take into consideration various documents which have been brought on record by the petitioner respondents to establish and indicate that they were in fact the legal heirs from the first wife. The learned Single Judge found that FCI has failed to take into consideration various documents which have been brought on record by the petitioner respondents to establish and indicate that they were in fact the legal heirs from the first wife. Learned Single Judge also proceeded to make a mention that these documents which form part of the record have not been disbelieved or rejected by the FCI and also does not denied that petitioner respondents were the legal heirs from the first wife. 8. Objections that were being taken by the appellant has been to the effect that on account of their conduct and behaviour towards Late Atma Ram no amount is liable to be released in favour of Nitin Choudhary and others. 9. Learned Single Judge has proceeded to make a mention that such an objection is not sustainable in law and the nominee holds the retiral dues and the corpus of payments made in respect of the deceased employee by virtue of being a person designated to receive the same and he/she however does not obtain any beneficial interest or supervening character by virtue of the act of nomination and the amounts must therefore necessarily be distributed in accordance with law amongst all heirs of the deceased employee. Judgement cited, namely Civil Appeal No.7587-7588 of 2004 (Mahesh Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar) will not come to the rescue of the appellant, as there the rights in question was based on will, and in the said backdrop, the conduct of ungrateful child has been examined, that impelled Hari Shankar to execute will. Here there is no will in existence, and as such right of sons through first wife remains intact. Learned Single Judge has given liberty to the FCI to undertake requisite enquiry through various documents which are relied upon or may even go to that extent of asking for a No Objection Certificate or an indemnity bond. The learned Single Judge, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as here the stepmother is bent upon to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner respondents and has been insisting that as a nominee she should receive the money and petitioner respondents should go for litigation and then only she would part the money in question. Such attitude of her is not at all being approved of by us also. Such attitude of her is not at all being approved of by us also. Once directives have been given to bring quietus to the dispute on admitted position, in view of the above, learned Single Judge has rightly proceed to pass the order in view of admitted positions, as such, special appeal sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.