TARUNA BHARATKUMAR BRAHMBHATT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is the widow of late Shri Bharatkumar Amthabhai Brahmbhatt, who was working as a Senior Assistant with the respondent No. and died while in service on 12.12.2010. Applicant prays for release of the DCRG and other terminal dues like P.F., Credit Society dues etc. as she is the person nominated by the deceased employee to receive such dues. It appears that there has been some family bickerings which has resulted in a strained relationship between the applicant and her two sons born out of deceased employee. She had to face denial of entry into the official quarter after the death of her husband. She states that prior to the death of her husband, two sons got executed a Will on 10.12.2010 by the deceased employee, legality of which is disputed by her. She further states that due to interference by her sons, she had to loose her employment as a Teacher in a School. An application was filed by her under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the sons and an interim maintenance was ordered by the Court in that case. However, her sons have entered into an agreement with her stating that they have no objection in converting the deceased employee's CPF into GPF and for paying family pension amount to the applicant by forfeiting the Government contribution plus interest therein for the family pension to be paid to the applicant and thereby she is getting family pension. She further states that she is getting the benefits of Contributory Health Service Scheme and that amounts from the Vikram Sarabhai Trust Family Welfare Fund has been shared by her and her sons by way of mutual consent.

(2.) APPLICANT states that DCRG, Provident Fund, Earned Leave amount, amount due from the Credit Society etc. are not released to her by the respondents although she is a nominee to receive those amounts. The sons have approached the Court of 4th Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) for probating the Will for getting those benefits.

(3.) IN the reply filed by the respondents, it is admitted that the deceased employee had nominated the applicant to receive the DCRG, Provident Fund amount and the amount of Group Insurance Scheme by a nomination dated 10.6.2004 but after the death of the employee, his sons i.e. Utkarsh Brahmbhatt and Ravi Brahmbhatt along with a letter dated 14.12.2010 produced a Notarized Will dated 10.12.2010 executed by late Shri Brahmbhatt and have put up their claim for the terminal benefits payable in respect of death of their father. According to the respondents since there are more than one person staking claim for release of terminal benefits, the matter was referred to the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Branch Secretariat, Mumbai for legal opinion. The respondents have been informed vide letter dated 11.3.2011 that the matter involves question of disputed facts and authenticity/validity of execution of Will and the same was required to be decided by the Competent Court of law and accordingly, the respondents were instructed to inform the parties to produce declaratory orders from the Competent Court of law in respect of release of terminal benefits payable on the death of Shri Brahmbhatt. The respondents admit that vide letter dated 3.5.2011, the applicant had requested for conversation of CPF to GPF and the sons have submitted are affidavit and letter stating that they have no objection in converting their father's CPF account to GPF/Pension Scheme by forfeiting Government contribution plus interest thereon and for paying family pension to the applicant. Accordingly, family pension has been released in favour of the applicant after converting CPF amount to GPF Pension Scheme. Gratuity, CGEGIS, Leave Encashment and Provident Fund are yet to be paid and the same will be paid on production of the declaratory order from the Competent Court of law, keeping in view the claims made by the different legal heirs of the deceased employees, the respondents contend that in view of the claim made by the sons of the deceased employee the applicant ought to have impleaded all legal heirs as a parties in this OA without whom the matter cannot be finally adjudicated. The respondents therefore pray for dismissing the application in limine.