Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 910 (ALL)

Meena Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-03-10

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 28 January 2016 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant for the release of retiral dues payable in respect of the service rendered by her husband who was a Sub-Inspector in the State police. Ram Singh Baghel was a Sub-Inspector in the State police who died on 26 January 2014. The appellant asserted her claim for the payment of family pension, gratuity, GPF and other benefits. A report was submitted by the Circle Officer, Fatehgarh to the Superintendent of Police. The report records that the appellant is the lawfully wedded spouse of the deceased employee. The Circle Officer noted that there was a subsequent marriage of the deceased employee with one Sushila Devi in 1983. The Circle Officer noted that a claim was also asserted by Rajwati who alleged that the deceased had entered into a wedlock in 2006. The Circle Officer recorded that between the appellant and Sushila Devi, there appears to be no dispute since they live together. Both the appellant and Sushila Devi controverted the claim of Rajwati on the ground that there was no valid marriage contracted with her. The Circle Officer in his report to the Superintendent of Police has stated that he had advised all the three claimants to seek recourse to the civil court. 2. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the family pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and others benefits immediately from the death of the petitioner husband in favour of the petitioner." 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the report of the Circle Officer indicated that there were three claimants asserting to be the wives of the deceased employee and though the Circle Officer had tried to bring about a settlement, it had not been possible. Hence, on the ground that no writ or direction on disputed questions of fact can be issued for making payment to the appellant, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. The relevant Rules which govern the subject are the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 Rules. 5. Rule 5 provides for the payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity. Hence, on the ground that no writ or direction on disputed questions of fact can be issued for making payment to the appellant, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. The relevant Rules which govern the subject are the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 Rules. 5. Rule 5 provides for the payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity. Under Rule 6, a Government servant is required to make a nomination in respect of the right to receive gratuity that may be sanctioned under Rule 5. Rule 7 deals with the payment of family 1 Rules pension. Rule 7 (4) (a) stipulates that except as may be provided by a nomination made under sub-rule (5), a pension sanctioned under the provisions shall be granted to the eldest surviving widow if the deceased was a male officer. The note to sub-rule (4) indicates that the expression "eldest surviving widow" is to be construed with reference to the seniority according to the date of marriage with the officer and not with reference to the age of the surviving widow. 6. We have indicated these provisions to emphasise that sufficient guidance is contained in the provisions of the Rules to deal with such a situation. If there was a nomination validly executed, the nomination would govern the payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity. The principles for the payment of family pension are indicated in Rule 7. 7. The Superintendent of Police as a competent authority is required to determine the entitlement to the payment of gratuity, family pension, GPF and other retiral dues in accordance with the provisions which are contained in the Rules. The fact that a settlement was not possible between the rival claimants will not discharge the competent authority of its obligation to decide the matter in accordance with law. The provisions of the Rules were evidently not noticed by the learned Single Judge. There was no reason to dismiss the writ petition as raising disputed questions of fact. There may be disputed claims but where the law has made provisions for the disposal of those claims in accordance with the principles of nomination and priority, the provisions of the Rules must govern. 8. There was no reason to dismiss the writ petition as raising disputed questions of fact. There may be disputed claims but where the law has made provisions for the disposal of those claims in accordance with the principles of nomination and priority, the provisions of the Rules must govern. 8. For these reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and remit the proceedings to the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad to redetermine the matter in accordance with law having due regard to what has been observed above. We clarify that in the absence of the fourth and fifth respondents (Sushila Devi and Rajwati), we are not making any specific finding on the facts or merits of the rival claims since the Superintendent of Police will have to determine the issue after furnishing a notice to all the three rival claimants. Since the order which we have passed does not amount to any adjudication on the merits of the rival claims, notice to the fourth and fifth respondents is dispensed with. The Superintendent of Police shall ensure that notice should issue to all the three claimants before a final decision is taken. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.