SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and learned counsel for the Union of India and its authorities, respondent No. 1 to 4. (Impleadment application to implead respondent No. 6 was allowed through order dated 18. 11. 2004 but actual impleadment has not been carried out in the writ petition. Office shall do the same before issuing certified copy of this order.) Late Rajendra Prasad Maurya was Lance Naik (L/nk ). He died in harness on 28. 09. 1991. Petitioner, being wife of late Sri R. P. Maurya was his nominee in his service records. However, it appears that late Sri R. P. Maurya had allegedly remarried with Smt. Neelam Devi, respondent No. 5, who is no more. Dispute arose regarding disbursement of retiral dues including pension. According to the petitioner, Captain, Record Officer on behalf of Officer In-charge, Records wrote a letter on 08. 07. 1992 to the petitioner from Army Head Quarter, Secundarabad to the effect that on 12. 06. 1990 she had been divorced by late Sri R. P. Maurya in Panchayat and Sri R. P. Maurya had remarried with Neelam Devi, respondent No. 5. Respondents No. 1 to 4 out rightly denied this fact in their counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 has reiterated the said stand and has completely disowned the said letter on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4. This writ petition is directed against the alleged order dated 08. 07. 1992. The net result is that retiral dues including family pension etc. have not been paid to any one. Now respondent No. 5 is no more. Even otherwise among Hindus divorce cannot be given in Panchyat orally. Second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage is also not permissible. In any case, respondents No. 1 to 4 have stated that petitioner Srimati Shakuntla Devi is the nominee, hence she deserves payment. However, if Court directs otherwise respondents No. 1 to 4 would be ready and willing to make payment of retiral dues accordingly. In this writ petition, a compromise has been entered into in between petitioner, wife of late employee and respondent No. 6, mother of the late employee. Incidentally the names of both the ladies are same, i. e. Shakuntla Devi. Respondent No. 6 is Shakuntla Devi wife of Sri Dashrath Maurya. Compromise dated 11. 12. 2008 signed by both the parties and their learned counsel has been filed on 12. 12. 2008. The said compromise is supported by affidavit of petitioner. According to the compromise, both the ladies agree to take 50% of all the retiral dues including pension, gratuity, Army Group Insurance (Death Benefits), Army Group Insurance (Maturity Benefits) and Armed Forces Personnel Provident Fund. Nomination in service records is merely meant for payment of the amount to the nominee on behalf of all the legal representatives of the deceased employee. In fact all the legal representatives are entitled to the amount payable in respect of the deceased employee in accordance with relevant law of succession. This is the same principle, which applies to payment of life insurance amount. Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 346 "sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi" has held that nominee in the life insurance policy is legally bound to disburse the amount received by him to the heirs of the deceased in accordance with their share under the law of succession applicable to them. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise. Respondents No. 1 to 4 are directed to pay all the dues payable due to death of late Sri R. P. Maurya consolidated as well as recurring to both the ladies in exactly equal share. .