Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 251 (RAJ)

Buji Devi v. State of Raj

2025-02-07

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2025
Order : 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a prayer has been made for releasing the retiral/terminal benefits of the deceased government servant (Rakesh Rawat) Constable in Rajsthan Police. Counsel submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are parents of the deceased and the petitioner No.3 is son of the deceased government servant. 2. Counsel submits that wife of the deceased government servant committed murder of the deceased government servant for which she faced trial for the offence under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar in Sessions Case No.40/2013, and she was found guilty vide judgment dated 17.01.2017, and was convicted for the above offences and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 3. Counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment was assailed by wife of the deceased government employer before this Court by way of filing D.B. Criminal Appeal No.506/2017, however, the same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2018, and consequently, the judgment passed by the Court below dated 17.01.2017 became final. Counsel submits that the said judgment passed by this Court has not been assailed before the Apex Court. Hence, under these circumstances, the above judgment of conviction and sentence has attained finality. 4. Counsel submits that the petitioners being LRs of the deceased government servant are entitled to receive his terminal benefits. 5. Counsel submits that after death of the deceased, an application was submitted by the petitioners for grant of the terminal benefits but at the relevant time, the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur, vide letter dated 10.10.2013 kept the matter in abeyance till final disposal of the Sessions Case No.40/2013, in terms of Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘Rules of 1996’). Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was passed at the time when wife of the deceased government servant was not convicted. 6. Counsel submits that after conviction of the wife, again the petitioners approached the respondent-authorities for release of the retiral/terminal dues of the deceased government servant but this time, they did not release the same for the reasons best known to them. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. 7. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. 7. Counsel submits that as per Rule 73 of the Rules of 1996, wife of the deceased is not eligible and entitled to get the terminal benefits. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners being LRs of the deceased government servant are entitled to get the same, therefore, appropriate directions be issued to the respondent-authorities to release the said amount forthwith without any further delay. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that in the nomination form, the deceased government servant has declared the share of his parents and his wife. He submits that 20% share each has been kept for mother and father of the deceased government servant and rest 60% share has been kept for wife of the deceased government servant as nominees.Counsel submits that so far as 20% share of their nomination is concerned, both the parents are entitled to get the same but so far as the claim of the minor is concerned, the same cannot be released without getting the succession certificate/guardian certificate, issued by the competent court of law. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, appropriate orders be passed. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 10. The facts of the case are not disputed by either side and now the only question for consideration of this Court is whether the grand-parents of the minor child are entitled to get his share in absence of any succession certificate/guardianship certificate. So far as their right to claim, their share of 20% each is concerned, the same is not disputed and certainly they are entitled to get the same, in terms of the Rule 56 of the Rules of 1996 which clearly lays down with regard to the persons to whom gratuity is payable. Sub-clause 3(d) appended to the Rule 56 of the Rules of 1996 provides that when the death/retirement gratuity becomes payable to a minor, then the same should be paid to the father/in his absence of the mother of the beneficiary. Sub-clause 3(d) appended to the Rule 56 of the Rules of 1996 provides that when the death/retirement gratuity becomes payable to a minor, then the same should be paid to the father/in his absence of the mother of the beneficiary. If there is no surviving parent, then the gratuity amount would be paid to the person claiming himself/herself as guardian of the said minor and for that purpose he/she is supposed to get the guardianship certificate from the competent court of law. Likewise Rule 4(c)(ii) of the (Pension Fund Regulatory & Development Authority (Exits and Withdrawals Under the National Pension System) Regulations, 2015 lays down that in case, the nomination is not registered by the deceased subscriber before his death, the accummulated pension wealth would be paid to the family members on the basis of the legal heir certificate, issued by the competent authority or the successions certificate issued by the court having competent jurisdiction. 11. For getting the remaining 60% share of the terminal benefits, the petitioners are supposed to get the guardianship certificate/succession certificate from the court of competent jurisdiction, and in case, they get the same, the respondents are expected to release the said amount to them forthwith. 12. It is made clear that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the nominees in the service record of their deceased son and the share of their nomination is 20% each. Hence, they are entitled to get their respective shares. 13. In view of above, the respondents are directed to release the same to the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 forthwith along with interest @ 9% per annum, without any further delay, preferably within a period of three month from the date of certified copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid discussions and observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. 15. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.