SAVITHRI Vs. DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the widow of late K. K. Krishnankutty, who was a Gang mate working under the respondents. Their marriage was solemnized on 11. 1. 1981 and two children are born out of that wedlock. Her husband died in harness on 11. 1. 2007. She applied for family pension and other terminal benefits due to her late husband. Since the deceased employee did not nominate her as the wife for the purpose of receipt of family pension, the respondents declined her request. It was also found that another lady's name was shown in the statement given by the said Krishnankutty. The petitioner submits, it was a mistake and krishnankutty did not have any other wife. The Railways also do not have a case that a second wife came forward, seeking the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. But, they insisted for production of a succession certificate from the competent authority, for granting the terminal benefits of the deceased employee, to the petitioner. She approached the Central administrative Tribunal by filing O. A. No. 80/2008. The said O. A was disposed of with the following directions:

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. The learned counsel would submit that no third party has come forward, claiming the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. In view of the above position, we feel that the direction of the Tribunal to release the terminal benefits and family pension to the petitioner on production of the succession certificate, should be modified as on production of legal heirship certificate. We do so. It is clarified that this judgment will not affect the rights, if any, of the third parties or the power of the civil court to adjudicate their claims. The Writ petition is allowed as above.