KALVIKARASI Vs. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT GENERAL AANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original Application has been filed by the petitioner before the tribunal, seeking to direct the respondents to pass orders on the notice issued by the petitioner dated 09.03.1998, regarding payment of Death and Employment Benefits of her deceased husband Mr.T.Sivaraman as per the award passed in Succession O.P.No.5 of 1996 dated 16.04.1997 on the file of Lok Adalat, Sub Court, Ranipet. On the abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.38541 of 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner is the wife of late T.Sivaraman, who was working as Assistant Educational Officer. Her husband Sivaraman died intestate on 26.06.1996. THE petitioner, her son and daughter, both minors, are class I legal heirs entitled to succeed to the employment benefits of her husband. THEre was a dispute in respect of the employment benefits of the deceased person, as one Hemamalini and her five children claimed right as wife and children of the petitioner's deceased husband Sivaraman. THErefore, the said Hemamalini applied for issuance of a Succession Certificate in O.P. No. 5 of 1996 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet and prayed for issue of Succession Certificate. THE matter was taken up by Lok-Adalat and on the Joint memo filed by the parties, the dispute was settled among them to share the employment benefits of the deceased T.Sivaraman in the following terms:

(3.) HEARD both parties. This is an unfortunate case where the Government Servant or officer of the Government, directs the family of deceased Government servant from pillar to post for getting their family benefit on the death of the Government servant. It is no doubt that there was a dispute between first wife and second wife and the deceased Government servant has nominated his first wife in the pension papers. But, subsequently, it has come to light that the petitioner was married during the life time of the deceased as his second wife. Though, under law, the marriage is not legitimate, the parties themselves have entered into compromise. In fact, the first wife filed a petition for Succession Certificate, even though, she is the nominee nominated by her husband, seeking certificate to get benefits from and out of the Government funds. In the said Succession Certificate, the petitioner and other legal heirs also were impleaded as parties and they have arrived at a compromise. In fact, the Succession Certificate were jointly filed by both petitioner and Hemamalini and their children. In the compromise arrived between the parties, a succession certificate was issued clearly stating that the family pension would be given to the first wife and the petitioner shall be entitled to DCRE amount, SPF amount, Gratuity and Earned Leave amount. This was duly communicated to the respondents. In fact, the first respondent had paid the family pension to the first wife. But in so far as gratuity and other amount, the first respondent did not pay the amount, to the petitioner, even though, on 19.02.1998, a sum of Rs.2,13,750/- was kept withheld on the ground that since nomination was given in the name of first wife, the Succession Certificate issued by the competent Civil Court is not legally correct. Their contention was that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to issue a Succession Certificate in service matters. Unfortunately, the respondents would say that the Succession Certificate issued by the competent Court is not binding on them. Though the pension Rules says that the benefits should be disbursed to the nominee as per the nomination, in this case, the very nominee herself was party in the Succession Certificate proceedings and the matter has been settled in the Lok Adalat and a valid decree was passed by the Civil Court which is binding on all. Unfortunately, the department took the stand that since nomination was given originally, they withheld the amount from 19.02.1998 a sum of Rs.2,13,750/-. The respondents, instead of withholding the amount, ought to have called upon both the petitioner as well as the nominee and find out whether they have any grievance at all and whether the amount can be paid in terms of the award passed by the Lok Adalat. The issue could have been set at naught by such a simple method. Due to the indifferent attitude of the respondents, the matter was kept pending for more than 4 years and left with no other alternative, the petitioner approached the tribunal. On the abolition of the tribunal, the matter has been kept pending for the past 12 years. Had there been any fault attributable on the part of the petitioner or the nominee, there is every justification in retaining the amount as claimed by the respondents. Whereas, all the parties to the dispute have resolved their dispute through a proper Civil Court by entering into a compromise. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the amount as per the lok Adalat decree with interest, as claimed by her since there was more than three months delay in disbursement of family pension, which delay is attributable to the respondents themselves.