RAM LAL Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajendra Prasad, son of the petitioner was employed with the respondent-MTNL. He expired on 11.1.2002. The petitioner alleges that he filed a guardianship petition before the District Courts, Delhi which was allowed vide order dated 12.11.2003 whereby the petitioner has been appointed guardian of the minor children of the deceased son and has been permitted to receive the deposit lying with the respondent. The petitioner alleges that he has completed all necessary formalities and submitted the necessary claim forms requesting the respondent to release the legitimate dues of the deceased son and has also served the notice dated 3.3.2004 on the respondent, that the respondent vide a letter dated 2.4.05 instructed the petitioner to submit necessary forms and complete formalities for fixation of pension and payment of DLRG and other dues but the respondent has failed to pay legitimate dues of the petitioner's deceased son. Hence the writ petition seeking an order directing the respondent to pay the 'entire amount payable' to the deceased son with interest @ 24%.

(2.) In the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the order of the District Judge dated 23.2.2004 does not entitle the petitioner to deprive the widow of the deceased son of her legitimate right to receive family pension as per rules, that the order for the payment of pension has been issued in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi widow of Rajindra Prasad, that payment of gratuity is also subject to rules and are not affected by any petition for guardianship and that the writ petition is devoid of any merit.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a copy of the order passed in his petition under Section 10 of Guardianship Act, 1890. The operative part of the order is as under:-