Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 663 (RAJ)

Sukhjindra Kaur v. State of Rajasthan

2020-09-17

DINESH MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: "1. By any writ order or direction, the respondents may be directed to grant all the death benefits including Pension, GPF claim, gratuity, Insurance claim, leave encashment claims etc. of the service of the deceased to the petitioner. 2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. The writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost throughout." 2. The petitioner has sought above reliefs/directions with a stand that she was having 'live-in' relationship with late Rajkumar Pal, who was serving in the respondent - Department as a Teacher. 3. After death of said Raj Kumar Pal on 15.03.2020, she moved an application before the respondents No.2 and 3 and requested them to pay the retiral dues and other entitlements relating to said Raj Kumar Pal to her, as she was living with the deceased Govt. employee in 'live-in' relationship since 19.03.2016. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not remitted the due amount to her, and such action/inaction is illegal. 4. In support of her right and in a bid to secure the directions, the petitioner has placed on record, a copy of the agreement said to have been executed with said Raj Kumar Pal and photostat copy of his Bank statement. 5. Mr. Vaishnav, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since petitioner was living with the deceased Government employee and she has been duly nominated in his Bank account and service record, she is entitled to get the retiral dues and other amounts to which wife/family of a Govt. employee is entitled. 6. Learned counsel failed to show any statute or law recognising 'live-in' relationship for the purpose of inheritance/succession. 7. Merely because, the petitioner has been nominated by the deceased Government employee as a nominee in his Bank account and service record, the same, by itself, does not make her entitled to claim the amount to which family member of the deceased Government employee are otherwise entitled. 8. Nominee is simply a person nominated by the holder of account/investor to receive the amount. 8. Nominee is simply a person nominated by the holder of account/investor to receive the amount. Such amount remains with him/her as a trustee in fiduciary capacity and he/she has to distribute/pay the same to the legal heirs, in accordance with law. 9. Aforesaid view is fortified by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishin N. Kanchandani and Ors. Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Ors., (2000) AIR SC 2747 , wherein it has been held:- "In the light of what has been noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that though language and phraseology of Section 6 of the Act is different than the one used in Section 39 of the Insurance Act, yet, the effect of both the provisions is the same. The Act only makes the provisions regarding avoiding delay and expense in making the payment of the amount of the National Savings Certificates, to the nominee of holder, which has been considered to be beneficial both for the holder as also for the post office. Any amount paid to the nominee after valid deductions becomes the estate of the deceased. Such an estate devolves upon all persons who are entitled to succession under law, custom or testament of the deceased holder. In other words, the law laid down by this Court in Sarbati Devi's case holds field and is equally applicable to the nominee becoming entitled to the payment of the amount on account of National Savings Certificates received by him under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Act who in turn is liable to return the amount to those, in whose favour law creates beneficial interest, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act." 10. Further in Ram Chander Talwar & Ors. Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 671 , the Apex Court has observed as under:- "Section 45ZA(2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession. All the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of Section 45ZA(2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed." 11. The petitioner, who has not legally wedded the deceased Government employee, cannot claim herself to be his sole legal heir over and above rights of his surviving heirs his wife and three children. 12. That apart, the petitioner has not impleaded the wife and children of the deceased as party-respondent(s) in the present proceedings, in whose absence the questions posed cannot be adjudicated upon. 13. Be that, as it may. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for the purpose of deciding inter se civil or inheritance rights. 14. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. 15. Stay petition also stands dismissed.