No Reason To Withhold Payment Of Post Retiral Benefits Once There Is Nomination Left By Deceased In His Service Records In Favor Of His Wife: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court ruled that once there is a nomination left by the deceased in his service records in favour of a person, who is his wife, there is no reason for the employer to withhold payment of the post retiral benefits in favour of the nominee in the service records. It is for the other person, not so nominated, to establish his/ her claim through suit.
The High Court further explained that a nomination in the service records and a succession certificate granted by the Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act don’t confer any beneficial interest upon the recipient of the proceeds.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice J.J. Munir asserted, “A succession certificate gives valid discharge to a third party, who holds funds for another, no more in the mortal world, by certifying the person entitled to receive the funds or moneys or other movable properties owned by the deceased. It does not declare title for the person in whose favour the succession certificate is issued. The holder of a beneficial interest in movable property or money received under a succession certificate would have to establish it, if he is a person, other than the holder of the certificate, by establishing that right in a duly constituted suit. A petition for succession is by no means a suit; nor the succession certificate a decree, declaring title or beneficial interest in favour of the one, who holds it.”
Advocate Ishir Sripat represented the Petitioners while C.S.C. Rakesh Kumar Yadav represented the Respondents.
The late Mohd. Rashid was appointed an Assistant Teacher in the Education Service of the State way back in the year 1990. He went on to hold the position of the Officiating Principal, Government Inter College, Kaulsena, Bulandshahr in course of time. He died in harness in the year 2020 and had a dependent family of five members, his wife, Rafat Naaz (petitioner No.1), three sons, namely, Mohd. Rehan Khan, Mohd. Rakib Khan, Mohd. Raza Khan (petitioner No.2) and a daughter Rafia Naaz. The dependents have virtually been on the verge of starvation.
The first petitioner instituted a petition for the grant of a succession certificate in the Court of the Civil Judge but the fifth respondent contested the first petitioner's case. It was the case of the first petitioner that she is the lawfully wedded wife of Rashid, who had no other wife, besides her. The fifth respondent had ulterior motives to come up with a baseless claim, saying that she was Rashid's second wife.
Pleadings were also made to the effect that the first petitioner and the deceased's dependents are going without any family pension and other funds for nearly four years past. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that the inaction of the respondents in delaying disbursement of the deceased's death-cum-retirement benefits have been castigated as serious infraction of the first petitioner's right to life. The second petitioner also claimed compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Before the High Court, the first petitioner sought a mandamus to the respondents to pay her the death-cum-retirement benefits admissible under rules by virtue of being Rashid's widow while the second petitioner sought a direction to consider his claim for appointment to a suitable post under the Rules of 1974.
Noticing that the relief sought by the second petitioner was simple, the Bench held, “In the circumstances, there is no impediment whatsoever in issuing a direction to the DIOS to consider the second petitioner's claim, either himself if he be empowered, or cause it to be laid before the competent Authority, who would be obliged to consider and decide the same in accordance with the second petitioner's entitlement under the Rules of 1974, or whatever other rules be applicable.”
The principal issue before the Bench was the first petitioner's claim to the death-cum-retirement benefits due on account of the late Rashid's service. As per the Bench, neither the Court nor the respondent Education Authorities, who hold funds of the deceased in trust for his lawful successors can decide, who that successor is. As between the first petitioner and the fifth respondent, the settled position of the law is that these benefits must be given to the nominee in the service records. It was also stated that a succession certificate even if granted in favour of the first petitioner, or for that matter, the fifth respondent does not create any beneficial interest in the funds or monies paid to either of them by the respondent Authorities.
The High Court also clarified, “In substance, a nomination in the service records and a succession certificate granted by the Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act are at par; neither confers any beneficial interest upon the recipient of the proceeds…At the same time, once there is a nomination left by the deceased in his service records in favour of a person, who is his wife, there is no reason for the respondents or any employer to withhold payment of the post retiral benefits in favour of the nominee in the service records.It is for the other person, not so nominated, to establish his/ her claim through suit.”
In the present case, the fifth respondent is certainly not a nominee of the deceased in any of the service records. Her name does not appear in those records as the deceased's wife. So far as divorce between the first petitioner and the deceased went, there was not a shred of evidence produced by the fifth respondent. It was also noticed that the information posted on the Manav Sampada Sansadhan Prabandhan Pranali Portal carried a nomination in favour of the first petitioner relating to the General Provident Fund, Gratuity and Pension in the event of Rashid's death and showed her relationship to Rashid as his wife.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench directed, “ A mandamus is issued to respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 to ensure amongst themselves immediate sanction and payment of family pension to the first petitioner, including arrears, General Provident Fund, Gratuity, Dues on account of Leave Encashment, Group Insurance and any other deathcum-retirement benefit, admissible under the Rules. A mandamus is further issued to each of respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 to ensure amongst themselves consideration and decision of the second petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with rules within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order.”
Cause Title: Rafat Naaz And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:187677]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ishir Sripat, Siddharth Agrawal
Respondents: C.S.C. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate Shishir Kumar Tiwari