SUSEELA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original Petition is filed by the 1st petitioner along with her children claimed to have been born out of her wedlock with the deceased S. Sahadevan who was a Police Constable under the State Government. THE 4th respondent is staled to be the 1st wife of deceased S. Sahadevan and respondents 5,6 and 7 are the children of deceased Sahadevan born out of the first wedlock. Sahadevan died in harness on 18-3-1982. On the demise of Sahadevan, both petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 claimed terminal benefits under the service rules. As a matter of fact, respondents 4 to 7 had filed a suit namely O. S. 424/86 before the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum for a declaration that they are respectively the legal wife and children of deceased Sahadevan. Petitioners were defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit. That suit ended in compromise as evidenced by Ext. P1 copy of the compromise decree. THE compromise decree provides inter alia that: " (1) that the 4th respondent is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and respondents 5 to 7 their legitimate children, (2) that the 5th respondent Saji on attaining majority shall be entitled to the death-in-harness employment, (3) that the petitioners will be entitled to the DCRG and GPF benefits of Rs. 7,688/- and 876/- respectively, and to family pension at the rate of Rs. 248/- per mensem, including arrears from 1982, and (4) that out of the arrears of family pension, the 4th respondent shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 5,000/-" However, the 1st respondent refused to disburse the terminal benefits of the deceased Sahadevan either to the petitioners or respondents 4 to 7, because none of them produced documents to show that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. It is contended by the 1st respondent that the Government was not a party to the suit that culminated in Ext. P1 decree and as such the Government is not bound by Ext. Pl.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew my attention to the judgment reported in P. A. Biju v. Director, Printing and Stationary (1989 (2) KLJ 247) wherein it was held that if there is a decision by a competent court granting succession certificate, the result of any enquiry conducted by an administrative authority under the service rules would not get any precedence over the enquiry conducted by the judicial authority. In that case, the finding entered by the executive authorities contrary to what was decided by the court in the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate was held to be unsustainable on the ground that if it is a question of choice between the judicial decision in proceedings initiated under the Indian Succession Act and the administrative determination without notice to the parties which a revenue officer conducted, it is the former which was invariably to be respected. It was argued that in the light of Ext. P1 compromise decree granted by a court of law, the Government may be directed to abide by the decision of the" court and disburse terminal benefits of the deceased government employee in the proportion determined as per Ext. P1 compromise decree.

(3.) BEFORE parting with the case, the counsel for the petitioners wanted me to direct the 1st respondent to disburse the amounts, in the absence of any other claimants, as per Ext. P1 decree which is binding on the petitioners and respondents 4 to 7. Suffice it to observe that if any one of them receive the entire terminal benefits as legal heirs of Sahadevan, the other parties to the suit, will have a claim to part of the amount as per Ext. P1 decree. However, it is for the parties to work out their remedies in this regard in appropriate proceedings. In a petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, this court would not be justified in issuing any direction regarding the proportionate disbursement of the amount as per Ext. P1 decree.