NARESH NARAIN JOHRI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Maya Johri wife of the petitioner died on 26.5.1989 while she was in service. The petitioner by means of this petition had claimed that amount of pension, gratuity amount, group Insurance and General Provident Fund linked Insurance have not been paid to him. He also claims that the wife of the petitioner should have been granted selection grade scale of pay with effect from 1.7.1983. In the writ petition, no case has been made out as to how the deceased was eligible to selection grade scale of pay with effect from 1.7.1983. Therefore, such a claim cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition in absence or any material.

(2.) Mr. J. K. Tiwari, holding the brief of Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the G.P.F. amount has been paid to him, but the gratuity, amount of group insurance and G.P.F. linked Insurance has not been paid. In the counter-affidavit, as pointed out by Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel, it is contended that the gratuity could not be paid since the deceased did not nominate any one and as such in the absence of succession certificate, such gratuity cannot be paid. It seems that there is substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. In para 2 of the writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner had been claiming that the deceased in her life time nominated the petitioner as her nominee. The said part has been dealt with in the counter-affidavit in para 4 to the extent that the deceased did not submit any nomination as required under the Gratuity Act and there was no paper on the record relating to such nomination. While dealing this para in the rejoinder-affidavit, in para 4. It is admitted that the G.P.F. amount has been sanctioned on the basis of the nomination under the G.P.F. Scheme, but nothing has been said about the nomination under the payment of Gratuity Act. Neither in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder-affidavit it has been pointed out that the deceased had ever taken steps for nomination. Therefore, the amount of gratuity, which is payable under the law has to be paid to the person, who produces a succession certificate. The respondent may pay the amount of gratuity as admissible to the deceased to the petitioner provided he produces or furnishes a succession certificate. However, the respondents shall intimate the petitioner the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner in order to enable him to obtain a succession certificate in respect of such amount. The question of interest as such becomes irrelevant, since till today the petitioner has not produced any succession certificate while it has not been specifically pleaded that the deceased had ever nominated the petitioner under the payment of Gratuity Act.

(3.) In such circumstances, respondents are directed to determine the amount of gratuity payable in the account of the deceased and communicate the same to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the concerned respondent.