SAMUNDA BAI Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Vijay Kumar Kaushik, who was working in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa as Head Constable, died in harness on 2-2-2012. Smt. Samunda Bai, first wife of Late Shri Vijay Kumar Kaushik, and her son made an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Act of 1925') for grant of succession certificate claiming GIS - Rs. 1,50,000/-, FBF - Rs. 19,080/-, DPF -Rs.1,43,034/-, GIS - Rs. 81,540/-, Gratuity - Rs. 3,58,034/- & Rs. 1,89,936/- and Pension Rs. 7,185/-; total amounting to Rs. 9,25,249/- in which they also impleaded Smt. Kanti Bai, second wife of Late Shri Vijay Kumar Kaushik, and her three sons as party non-applicants. Respondents No.2 to 5 herein claimed that since deceased Shri Vijay Kumar Kaushik has made a Will in their favour on 15-1-2012 and also nominated them in the service records, therefore, the applicants / petitioners herein are not entitled for grant of succession certificate. The trial Court rejected that application which has been affirmed by the appellate Court and against which this revision petition under Section 388(3) of the Act of 1925 has been preferred.

(2.) Miss Shivali Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that both the courts below are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application for grant of succession certificate in their favour. Petitioner No.1 being legally wedded wife of Late Shri Vijay Kumar Kaushik and petitioner No.2 being son out of the wedlock of Shri Vijay Kumar Kaushik & petitioner No.1 herein, are only entitled for succession certificate and even the family pension cannot be bequeathed by Will as it does not form part of estate of the employee. She relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Smt Violet Issaac and others v. Union of India and others, 1991 1 SCC 725, Vidhyadhari and others v. Sukhrana Bai and others, 2008 2 SCC 238 , Raj Kumari and another v. Krishna and others, 2015 14 SCC 511 and Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar and others, 2000 2 SCC 431 to buttress her submission. She would also rely upon Rule 44 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 to stress that only the first wife and her son are entitled for even the amount of gratuity. She further submits that in respect of family pension, the deceased had no right to nominate anybody in violation of the Pension Rules and such a nomination made is invalid. In order to buttress this submission she further relies upon Rule 47 and 48 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

(3.) Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5, submits that both the Courts below are absolutely justified in rejecting the application for succession, as the second wife was nominated in the service records by Late Shri Vijay Kumar Kaushik and drawing my attention towards paragraph 14 of the decision in Vidhyadhari (supra), he would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely justified in rejecting the application, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of succession certificate. He would also rely upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Usha Shukla and others v. Smt. Tarini Shukla and others, 2011 4 CGLJ 368 to buttress his submission.