Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 259 (RAJ)

Suman v. Uinion of India

2025-02-10

DINESH MEHTA

body2025
Order : 1. By way of the present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the communications dated 07.06.2016, 11.06.2016, 15.07.2017 and 21.03.2018, whereby the respondents have asked the petitioner to furnish a succession certificate, if she wants to get family pension in lieu of services, which her husband-Late Shri Manjeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased government servant’) had rendered with Union of India. 2. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to give compassionate appointment to her, as per criteria prescribed. 3. The needful facts are that petitioner’s husband-Manjeet Singh was appointed as Constable (GD) on 07.07.2012. At the time of his appointment he was a bachelor, hence, while submitting his documents including nomination for pension etc., he nominated his mother (Santosh Devi) to receive pensionary benefits and other rights flowing from his employment. 4. Manjeet Singh, then married to the petitioner on 14.01.2013 and within less than two years, he passed away in a road accident on 14.02.2015. 5. Since, he had nominated his mother, the terminal benefits were paid to her and Pension Payment Order (PPO) was also issued in her name on 30.03.2015. 6. As per the facts asserted, the petitioner had lodged an FIR (FIR No. 10/2016) alleging offences under sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. 7. In order to get the said FIR quashed, a criminal misc. petition (being Criminal Misc. Petition No.900/2016) came to be filed before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 27.10.2017 in terms of the compromise dated 07.05.2016, which the petitioner had entered into with her father-in-law and mother-in-law. 8. The relevant part of the compromise reads thus:- 9. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application dated 07.10.2016 and requested the Director General of Border Security Force for payment of family pension to her. Alongwith the application, the petitioner had produced various documents including certified copy of the claim petition filed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, copy of Driving License, copy of Aadhar Card and copy of invitation card of the wedding and an affidavit and certificate from the Sarpanch evincing proof of her marriage with the deceased government employee. 10. Alongwith the application, the petitioner had produced various documents including certified copy of the claim petition filed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, copy of Driving License, copy of Aadhar Card and copy of invitation card of the wedding and an affidavit and certificate from the Sarpanch evincing proof of her marriage with the deceased government employee. 10. Instead of changing the beneficiary of the family pension, the respondents sent a communication dated 07.06.2016 and asked the petitioner to produce a succession certificate to establish the factum of her marriage. The said communication was followed by another communications dated 11.06.2016, 15.07.2017 and 21.03.2018. 11. At the insistence of the respondents, the petitioner even moved an application dated 08.07.2016 for the purpose of getting family pension and for issuance of succession certificate (under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1925’)). 12. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deedwana, however, rejected petitioner’s application filed under section 372 of the Act of 1925 by way of order dated 08.05.2023 inter-alia holding that no succession certificate can be issued for grant of family pension and compassionate appointment, while relying upon certain judgments. 13. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents cannot insist upon furnishing of succession certificate, as the family pension is neither a debt nor a security as prescribed under section 370(2) of the Act of 1925. He relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 03.07.2013 rendered in the case of Smt. Savitri Devi & Anr. vs. District & Session Judge, Hanumangarh (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7121/2010) 14. Learned counsel further submitted that the fact that the petitioner had married the deceased government servant is not in dispute and being his legally wedded wife, it is her first right to get the family pension. He prayed that the respondents be directed to commence payment of family pension to her. 15. The respondents have filed a reply inter-alia asserting that the documents in the service record which the deceased government servant had filed depicted Santosh Devi (mother-in- law of the petitioner) as his nominee to get family pension and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to go as per the nomination made by the deceased government servant. The respondents have also averred that the Ration Card too did not contain petitioner’s name. 16. The respondents have also averred that the Ration Card too did not contain petitioner’s name. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. On analysis of factual matrix, it is clear that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as Constable (GD) on 07.07.2012, whereafter his marriage is claimed to be solemnized with the petitioner on 14.01.2013, whereafter he passed away on 14.02.2015. Since, the petitioner’s husband had passed away within two years of her marriage, that too at a very young age, it is quite natural that he would not think of changing the endorsement/nomination qua family pension and other dues, which he had furnished when appointed on the post of Constable (GD), while he was a bachelor. 18. It is to be noted that petitioner’s mother-in-law and father- in-law being mother and father of the deceased government servant had entered into a compromise with the petitioner on 07.05.2016 and clearly agreed that the family pension shall be paid to the petitioner and for such purpose, if any document/NOC is required to be signed by them, they would do the needful. 19. It is to be noted that the petitioner had moved an application for payment of family pension while enclosing the relevant documents evincing that she had married the deceased government servant and her mother-in-law and father-in-law had no objection, if the family pension is paid to her. The petitioner had tried to obtain the succession certificate, but her application came to be rejected vide order dated 08.05.2023. 20. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the Voter Identity Card issued on 28.03.2014, which shows the petitioner to be wife of Manjeet Singh (deceased government servant). Copy of the petitioner’s Voter Identity Card is taken on record. It is pertinent to note that the said Voter Identity Card was issued before the government servant had passed away. 21. On Court’s query, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that looking to the rural background and unawareness, no marriage certificate was obtained. He nevertheless submitted that there are various evidences including the wedding invitation card etc. which show that the petitioner had married the deceased government servant. 22. The respondents’ insistence for furnishing of succession certificate cannot be countenanced in light of judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Savitri Devi (supra). He nevertheless submitted that there are various evidences including the wedding invitation card etc. which show that the petitioner had married the deceased government servant. 22. The respondents’ insistence for furnishing of succession certificate cannot be countenanced in light of judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Savitri Devi (supra). The relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder: “The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition of the petitioners is allowed and the impugned orders dated 22.03.2001 (Annex.7) and order dated 15.04.2010 (Annex.13) are quashed and set aside and the respondent is directed to forward the family pension case of the first petitioner to the competent authority by treating fictional death of Shri Ramesh Singh w.e.f. 17th November, 2007 and the competent authority i.e., Pension Department is expected to process the papers for grant of family pension with utmost expediency for release of family pension to the first petitioner. The respondent must ensure that the arrears of family pension w.e.f. 17th November, 2007 be paid to the first petitioner. This entire exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The respondent is also directed to release other retiral benefits to the first petitioner within the said stipulated period. A further direction is also issued to the respondent to consider afresh the application of the second petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds strictly in accordance with Rules of 1996 within three months from the date of production of this order, and if he is found suitable, necessary orders in this behalf be issued forthwith. While considering the application of the second petitioner, the respondent shall take into account the exceptional circumstances of the instant case sympathetically with objectivity for extending the benefit of proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, if occasion so arises.” 23. Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1972’) clearly provides that in case of death of a government servant, his widow or widower shall be entitled to get family pension and it is only in case when the deceased government servant is not survived by a widow or an eligible child that the parents of the deceased government servant can avail the family pension. 24. 24. It is, therefore, clear that the right to claim and get the family pension accrues to the parents only in absence of spouse and an eligible child of the deceased government servant. 25. The respondents have started paying the family pension to the mother (Santosh Devi) of the deceased government servant simply because in the service record, the deceased government servant had nominated her. 26. Given that Manjeet Singh had passed away within two years of his marriage, it was quite natural that it did not occur to him to get the nomination changed in his wife’s name. 27. According to this Court, even if because of family distress or matrimonial discord, the petitioner’s husband had chosen not to nominate or endorse the name of the petitioner on the papers so that his family can get the family pension but the fact remains that the petitioner’s matrimony continued until Manjeet Singh passed away. 28. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the payment of pension to Santosh Devi (petitioner’s mother-in-law) had been stopped way back in 2016 on the basis of written request made by said Santosh Devi. It is, therefore, clear that the respondents are not paying the family pension to the petitioner, as she has failed to produce the succession certificate. 29. On perusal of the Voter Identity Card, which was issued on 28.03.2014, the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 30.04.2019, which was passed in presence of mother and father of the deceased government servant and the certificate issued by the Sarpanch, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension, as it is her first right to claim the same. 30. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 31. The respondents are directed to initiate payment of family pension to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of placing a certified copy of the order instant. 32. The respondents shall also pay the arrears of family pension from the date the same was stopped (to Santosh Devi) until the commencement of payment to the petitioner. The arrears be cleared within a period of three months from today. 33. 32. The respondents shall also pay the arrears of family pension from the date the same was stopped (to Santosh Devi) until the commencement of payment to the petitioner. The arrears be cleared within a period of three months from today. 33. With regard to the prayer made by the petitioner for giving compassionate appointment, she will be free to move an appropriate representation before the concerned authorities of the respondent department. 34. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.