DARBAG SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Sepoy Udai Singh serving in the 13 Kumaun Regiment laid down his life in Kargil operation on 7.9.1999. The petitioner who happens to be the elder brother of the deceased Sepoy appears to have made a claim for payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity, ex-gratia Central Govt. and liberalised family pension. All these claims were examined by the Govt. of India and rejected in terms of a communication dated 17.9.2003. A reading of the said communication would show that claims made by the petitioner were declined on the ground that there was no provision for granting the same to brothers and sisters who are over 24 years of age. The communication states that since the petitioner has already crossed 33 years of age, he was not entitled to the grant of the said benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said communication and for directions for payment of the amounts mentioned above.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the deceased Sepoy had nominated the petitioner for purposes of payment of DCRG. That such a nomination could be validly made is evident from Para 4(ii) of Army Instructions No. 8/S/70 by which death-cum-retirement gratuity scheme was introduced for the Army personnel. Para 4 of the said instructions deals with nomination of persons for payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity and specifically provides that if an individual has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of a person or persons, or a body of persons, corporate or incorporate. Para 4(ii) of the Scheme may be extracted at this stage :- "if the individual has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of a person or persons, or a body of persons, corporate or incorporate." Para 7(a) of the Scheme makes it obligatory for the authority to disburse the death-cum-retirement gratuity to a person or persons on whome the right to receive the same has been conferred by means of a valid nomination. Para 7(a) reads as under:-

(3.) In the light of the above, we find it difficult to appreciate how the petitioner who was a validly nominated person for receiving the death-cum- retirement gratuity could be denied the said benefits only on the ground that he had crossed the age of 24 years.