JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. - Samser Khan (petitioner no.1) and Mamtaz Begum (petitioner no.2) are father and mother respectively of late Wasim Hossain Khan. Opposite party nos.5 to 8, who are brought on record through intervention, are the brothers and sister of aforesaid late Wasim Hossain Khan. Ruksana Khatoon (opposite party no.4) is the widow of late Wasim Hossain Khan. The petitioners, who are parents of late Wasim Hossain Khan, have filed this writ petition for payment of legitimate dues from the retirement-cum-death benefits of their deceased son in favour of them. 2. Wasim Hossain Khan was working as a Constable/GD under the Commandant, 202 BN, COBRA CRPF, Sunabeda, district Koraput in the State of Odisha. On 07.07.2012, his marriage was solemnised with Ruksana Khatoon-O.P. No.4 as per the Muslim Rites and Customs. On 30.11.2012, Wasim Hossain Khan expired at the age of 25 years. After his death, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) in cash was immediately given to his widow (O.P. No.4) as financial assistance from the Unit Welfare Fund. After performance of the funeral rites, O.P. No.4 went to her parents' house and it is alleged that she terminated her pregnancy with intention to remarry severing all her contact/relationship with her in-laws. A further sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) was paid to the O.P. No.4, (widow of Wasim Hussain Khan) and she is also getting monthly family pension by interim order of this Court. As the O.P. No.4-widow of Wasim Hussan Khan is trying to take away all the service benefits of the deceased son of the petitioners including unpaid salary, gratuity, GIS, Risk Fund etc., which is asserted to be the estate of the deceased thereby debarring the petitioners and other legal heirs of the deceased, though she (O.P. No.4) has limited interest over the same, the present writ application has been filed. 3. In course of hearing, the petitioners have conceded that Ruksana Khatoon (O.P. No.4) being the widow of the deceased Wasim Hossain Khan, is entitled for the monthly family pension as per the Pension Rules either till her remarriage or till her death, whichever is earlier. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid legal position, which entitles O.P. No.4 to family pension under the relevant Rules. But so far as the death-cum-retirement benefits including gratuity, risk fund, unpaid salary etc. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid legal position, which entitles O.P. No.4 to family pension under the relevant Rules. But so far as the death-cum-retirement benefits including gratuity, risk fund, unpaid salary etc. is concerned, it is claimed by the petitioners that the same being the estate of the deceased Wasim Hossain Khan, the same is to devolve on the legal heirs according to the principle of Succession/inheritance in accordance with the Mohammedan Law. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the principles of Mohammedan Law and some legal propositions propounded by different High Courts, which shall be discussed at the appropriate stage. 5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.4, on the other hand, submits that the pension including death-cum-retirement benefits being a statutory benefit under the relevant Service Rules and Pension Rules, the Mohammedan Personal Law is not applicable to the present case, and according to the relevant Rules, neither the petitioners nor the Opp. Parties 5 to 8 are to be treated as family members of deceased Wasim Hossain Khan. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1, father of the deceased Wasim Hossain Khan being himself a retired employee and he having been in receipt of pension, is not entitled to further benefits admissible to his deceased son. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 relies on different provisions of the Constitution of India and a host of decisions to substantiate his contention, which shall be discussed at the appropriate stage. 6. From the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the following questions emerge for consideration in the present case. (i) Whether the death-cum-retirement benefits of deceased Wasim Hossain Khan excluding the family pension is an estate of the deceased ? (ii) Whether the petitioners and Opp. Parties 5 to 8 are the legal heirs of the deceased and they are entitled to the benefit claimed besides the widow of Wasim Hossain Khan? (iii) Whether the Mohammedan Personal Law is applicable to the facts of the present case? 7. The first question that craves indulgence of this Court is whether the Death-cum-Retirement Benefits ('DCRB' for short) on death of Wasim Hossain Khan excluding the family pension is an Estate of the aforesaid deceased. Merriam Webster's Dictionary (Web Edition) defines "Estate" as ?? : All the things that a person owns. 7. The first question that craves indulgence of this Court is whether the Death-cum-Retirement Benefits ('DCRB' for short) on death of Wasim Hossain Khan excluding the family pension is an Estate of the aforesaid deceased. Merriam Webster's Dictionary (Web Edition) defines "Estate" as ?? : All the things that a person owns. : The things left by someone who has died. : A large peace of land with a large house on it. Coming to the legal meaning of the Estate, I am not delving deep into the matter to find out the difference between the real and personal estate, estate and effects and other type of estate like "istimrari estate", "joint individual estate", "parent estate", etc. With the advancement of time, the law has changed and the property that a person owns or has legal interest in, is often used to describe the property after the person's death as estate. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that both the movable and immovable property of a person comes within the ambit of estate after his death. The only exception is that either the person during his life time should have owned the property or he should have an interest in the property. The death-cum-retirement benefit, if seen in a wider sense, is the sum-total of the amount, which the person is entitled to receive on his retirement on superannuation, if he is alive, or it is receivable by the legal heirs or persons entitled under the relevant Statute on the death of the person. 8. Here, we are concerned with the death-cum-retirement benefit of a person, who has died young leaving his widow and who was a service holder under the Central Reserve Police Force. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1409 . The said decision has been approved by a later Constitution Bench decision in the case of D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para- 20 of the Judgment has held thus :- "20. The said decision has been approved by a later Constitution Bench decision in the case of D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para- 20 of the Judgment has held thus :- "20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1971 (Supp) SCR 634 : ( AIR 1971 SC 1409 ) wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, (1976) 3 SCR 360 : ( AIR 1976 SC 667 )." From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that pension is admissible as a statutory right under the relevant rules. 9. The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 was enacted under the Government of India Act, 1935. It was a valid law, when the Constitution of India came into force and the President of India was competent to continue the aforesaid Statute as a valid law under Article-372 (1) of the Constitution of India. In exercise of the powers conferred in Section- 18 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, the Central Government has enacted the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Rule- 42 (a) & (b) provides that pension and gratuity for service in the force shall be regulated according to the provisions contained in the Civil Service Regulation as may be amended from time to time. Rule- 42 (a) & (b) provides that pension and gratuity for service in the force shall be regulated according to the provisions contained in the Civil Service Regulation as may be amended from time to time. So far as Civil Service of the Union is concerned, Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 ("CCS Pension Rules" for short) is the relevant rule governing the field. Rule- 54 (14) of the CCS Pension Rules provides thus :- "54 (14) (a) x x x x x x (b) Family in relation to a Govt. servant means- (i) Wife in the case of a male Govt. Servant, or husband in the case of a female Govt. Servant. x x x x x x x" We are not concerned with the Rules so far as children are concerned, as the deceased died issueless. From the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that neither the petitioners nor the Opp. Parties 5 to 8 come within the definition of 'family' in Rule- 54 (14) of the CCS Pension Rules. As held by this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), the pension is to be governed by the relevant rules and that is a statutory right. 10. In view of such fact, it has been rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that neither the petitioners nor the Opp. Parties 5 to 8 claim any family pension in their favour along with O.P. No.4 (widow of the deceased). But they claim that death-cum-retirement benefit being the estate of the deceased, the same is to devolve on the legal heir of the deceased according to the Law of Succession governing the parties, i.e., the Mohammaden Law. 11. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to find out, what pension means. Article- 366 (17) of the Constitution of India defines pension as follows:- "Pension means a pension, whether contributory or any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and includes retired pay so payable, a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, of subscription to a Provident Fund." The aforesaid definition of pension in the Constitution of India embraces all including gratuity, Provident Fund etc. as claimed by the petitioners to their share according to their personal law as death-cum-retirement benefit. as claimed by the petitioners to their share according to their personal law as death-cum-retirement benefit. So, when pension includes all the amount including gratuity, Provident Fund and other sum payable by way of return, the pension cannot be artificially classified as pension simpliciter and the death-cum-retirement benefit for the purpose of devolution on the legal heirs according to the personal law. 12. Family pension, which was initially introduced under a scheme in 1964, is nothing but extension of the benefit of pension to the dependent family of the deceased as quantified and specified in the scheme to save the family from penury and destitution. Now, family pension is a part of C.C.S. Pension Rules. There is no difference between pension and family pension except the following distinction. Pension is received by the person himself in service on his retirement (voluntary or on superannuation) if he has served for the minimum period that entitles him to receive pension. Family pension is received by the dependant family members as prescribed in the relevant Rules on death of the service holder, who was serving in a pensionable post. In view of such facts, the benefits, which are included in "Pension" under Article- 366 (17) of the Constitution of India cannot be detached or separated from "family pension" on any rational basis. Therefore, no artificial distinction can also be made between "family pension" and "Death-cum-Retirement Benefit" to give one benefit to Opp. Party No.4 (widow of the deceased) and another benefit to the petitioners and others including Opp. Party No.4 on the basis of the personal law governing the parties. Opp. Party No.4, the widow of the deceased being the only surviving family member as per C.C.S. Pension Rules, she is entitled to receive family pension and also the Death-cum-Retirement Benefits admissible to the deceased. 13. To reinforce my above discussion, I feel inclined to rely on Rule- 50 (6) and 51 of the C.C.S. Pension Rule. Rule- 50 ? Retirement/Death Gratuity xxx xxx xxx "(6) For the purposes of this rule and Rules 51, 52 and 53, 'family', in relation to a Government servant, means ? 13. To reinforce my above discussion, I feel inclined to rely on Rule- 50 (6) and 51 of the C.C.S. Pension Rule. Rule- 50 ? Retirement/Death Gratuity xxx xxx xxx "(6) For the purposes of this rule and Rules 51, 52 and 53, 'family', in relation to a Government servant, means ? (i) wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant, (ii) husband, including judicially separated husband in the case of a female Government servant, (iii) sons including stepsons and adopted sons, (iv) unmarried daughters including stepdaughters and adopted daughters, (v) widowed daughters including stepdaughters and adopted daughters, (vi) father, including adoptive parents in the case of individuals whose personal law permits adoption. (vii) mother, including adoptive parents in the case of individuals whose personal law permits adoption. (viii) brothers below the age of eighteen years including stepbrothers, (ix) unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including stepsisters, (x) married daughters, and (xi) children of a pre-deceased son." Rule- 51 provides thus :- "51. Persons to whom gratuity is payable (a) The gratuity payable under Rule 50 shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred by means of a nomination under Rule 53 ; (b) If there is no such nomination or if the nomination made does not subsist, the gratuity shall be paid in the manner indicated below ? (i) if there are one or more surviving members of the family as in Clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 50, to all such members in equal shares ; (ii) if there are no such surviving members of the family as in sub-clause (i) above, but there are one or more members as in Clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 50, to all such members in equal shares. (1) If a Government servant dies after retirement without receiving the gratuity admissible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 50, the gratuity shall be disbursed to the family in the manner indicated in sub-rule (1). (1) If a Government servant dies after retirement without receiving the gratuity admissible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 50, the gratuity shall be disbursed to the family in the manner indicated in sub-rule (1). (2) The right of a female member of the family, or that of a brother, of a Government servant who dies while in service or after retirement, to receive the share of gratuity shall not be affected if the female member marries or re-marries, or the brother attains the age of eighteen years, after the death of the Government servant and before receiving her or his share of the gratuity. (3) Where gratuity is granted under Rule 50 to a minor member of the family of the deceased Government servant, it shall be payable to the guardian on behalf of the minor." 14. None of the parties has submitted as to whether deceased Wasim Hossain Khan had made any nomination in favour of anybody. Opp. Party No.4, widow of the deceased is the only surviving member, as stipulated in Rule- 51 (b) (i). If there is any surviving member U/S. 15 (1) (b) (i), no surviving member of the family specified in Section 15 (1) (b) (ii) is entitled to receive any gratuity. In view of such provisions in the C.C.S. Pension Rule also, the petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased, are not entitled to receive any gratuity in accordance with the C.C.S. Pension Rules. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Parash Chandra Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Others, WPST 79 of 2014 disposed of on 28.04.2014, to substantiate his contention that the death-cum-retirement benefit of a deceased person is the estate of the deceased and it is to devolve on all the legal heirs according to the Law of Succession governing the parties. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata was dealing with the death-cum-retirement benefit rules framed by the West Bengal Government. In that rule, the definition of family varies for the purpose of death gratuity and for the family pension. In that case, the deceased had nominated his nephew as a nominee and ruling on the role of a nominee, the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court had ruled that gratuity is not a bounty but a property of the deceased employee. In that rule, the definition of family varies for the purpose of death gratuity and for the family pension. In that case, the deceased had nominated his nephew as a nominee and ruling on the role of a nominee, the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court had ruled that gratuity is not a bounty but a property of the deceased employee. It enures to the estate of the deceased. Therefore, when an employee dies, the gratuity must devolve on his legal heirs under the Law of Succession. The aforesaid case is distinguishable because the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court has only decided on the role of the nominee so far as the death-cum-retirement benefit of a deceased employee is concerned. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Oliya Begum (dead) Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Rashid (Civil Revision No.386 of 2010 disposed of on 03.04.2012). In that case, one Abida Sultan, who was an employee of Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Limited died. Three months before her death, her husband had given her divorce (Talaq). On the question of issuance of Succession Certificate by the competent court, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the husband having given Talaq, the father and sisters of the deceased are entitled to the benefits according to the Mohammedan Personal Law. That case has also no application to the fact of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on yet another case of Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Abdul Gani Rasti and others v. Muneera Banoo and another, AIR 2006 J&K 87 . In the aforesaid case also, issuance of Succession Certificate was questioned before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter to the Principal District Judge, Srinagar for a de novo trial, as if he is deciding an inter-pleader suit on the reference of the department concerned and further direction was issued to the Principal District Judge to decide the issue in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the matter. The aforesaid decision has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346 , to substantiate his contention. The aforesaid decision has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346 , to substantiate his contention. But the aforesaid case also relates to issue of entitlement of a nominee under the Insurance Act to receive the insured amount and it can be gainfully said that the insured amount under a Life Insurance is quite different from the death-cum-retirement benefit. So far as the death-cum-retirement benefit is concerned, it is no doubt a right to property recognised as a legal right under the Statute governing the field. Whoever is entitled to receive the death-cum-retirement benefit as a member of the family in the Statute governing the field, is to receive the same, if he is there. Article- 366 (17) has clearly defined pension and amount of pension, which includes gratuity, Provident Fund and other returns etc. cannot be termed as 'estate' for devolution according to the Personal Law governing the parties. In view of such position of law, I am constrained to hold that the death-cum-retirement benefit of the deceased Wasim Hossain Khan is not an estate of the deceased to be governed by the Personal Law applicable to the parties. 18. In view of such discussion, Question No.(iii) formulated (supra) is also answered accordingly and it is held that Mohammedan Personal Law is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the parties are to be governed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 and the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. 19. In view of such position of law, the petitioners and Opp. Parties 5 to 8 are not entitled to any benefit or share from the death-cum-retirement benefit of deceased Wasim Hossain Khan. O.P. No.4 (widow of the deceased) is only entitled to such benefit, as she has the statutory and legal right to receive the benefits under the provisions of the Constitution and the CCS Pension Rules. 20. Before parting with the order, I am constrained to say that the petitioners being the old parents of the deceased, they had some hope to the effect that their deceased son shall look after them financially in their old age. 20. Before parting with the order, I am constrained to say that the petitioners being the old parents of the deceased, they had some hope to the effect that their deceased son shall look after them financially in their old age. Taking into consideration such facts, Ruksana Khatoon (O.P. No.4), if so advised by her morality, conscience and counsel, may part with 10 per centum of total death-cum-retirement benefit of the deceased Wasim Hossain Khan, received by her, in favour of the petitioners. I make it clear that, this is, however, not a direction, and the O.P. No.4 is bound by her conscience, morality and advice of the counsel to do so. 21. In view of the discussions (supra), Question No.(ii) formulated (supra) has no relevance, as the discussion thereon would be mere academic in nature. 22. The interim order dated 16.10.2014 passed in Misc. Case No.3276 of 2014 so far as the arrear and current family pension to be paid to Ruksana Khatoon (Opp. Party No.4) is concerned, is made absolute. Opp. Parties 1 & 2 are directed to release the death-cum-retirement benefit of the deceased Wasim Hossain Khan in favour of the Opp. Party No.4 within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Judgment. 23. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Disposed Off