MAMTA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 12.07.2012, by which the petitioner, a widow of one Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma, an Assistant Teacher who has died on 28.05.2012, has been asked to furnish a succession certificate for the purposes of grant of terminal dues of the said employee, on the ground that the petitioner was duly nominated as wife for the purposes of payment of all such claims of the said employee. This nomination was never cancelled or recalled, even modified. This being so, only the petitioner was entitled to receive the terminal benefits of her husband and there could not be any insistence for payment of such dues to the petitioner only after obtaining a succession certificate. In fact a dispute was raised by respondent No.4, who was ex- wife of said late Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma. A suit for divorce was filed under the Hindu Marriage Act by said Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma in the Court of District Judge, Shahdol against the respondent No.4, which suit was decreed on 18th November, 1987. Though a decree was granted ex parte, but there was no step taken by respondent No.4, to get the ex parte judgment and decree set aside. After obtaining the decree said Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma got married with the petitioner herein on 27.06.1989, and made nomination of his second wife in the service record. Only because a case was filed by respondent No.4 for grant of maintenance against the husband of the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. along with her daughter and sons, and an order was passed on such an application by the Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Janjgir on 26.11.2002, the respondent No.4 would not become entitle to claim any benefit with respect to the service dues of the husband of the petitioner ignoring the nomination already made. Thus, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law.

(2.) : This Court has entertained the writ petition, has issued the notices to the respondents and the return has been filed by respondents. It is contended that since there is a dispute raised, unless a succession certificate is produced, it would not be proper to released the terminal dues in favour of the petitioner only. The respondent No.4 has already approached the Civil Court seeking declaration that she is legally married wife of said Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma, therefore, it would not be correct to say that no succession certificate could be demanded. These disputed facts are to be settled by the decisions of the Court and not by the authorities, therefore, such a claim made by the petitioner is misconceived. The respondent No.4, though has not filed any return, but has adopted the stand taken by respondents No. 1 to 3 and contended that in view of the facts as have been stated by the respondents, a succession certificate is required to be produced. It is further contended that proceedings in this respect have been initiated by respondent No.4 before the appropriate Forum and in case any direction is issued by this Court, the claim raised by respondent No.4 for grant of succession certificate would be frustrated.

(3.) : It is not in dispute that there is a nomination of the petitioner as wife of the employee aforesaid Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma duly made in the service record. This nomination has not been changed by said Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma while he was in service. It is not in dispute further that said Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma has died on 28.05.2012. It is also not in dispute that there was a Civil Suit filed against the respondent No.4 by said Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma for grant of decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, and that the said suit was decreed. It is also not in dispute that the said decree has not yet been annulled, set aside or revoked. A decree of Civil Court is not to be treated lightly. It has to be seen that if any claim contrary to the decree granted is made by the respondent No.4 without getting the said decree set aside from the competent Court, any such claim made by the respondent No.4 would be hit by principles of estoppal as by operation of law and by operation of the judgment and decree, respondent No.4 would be estopped to claim any benefit unless the decree is set aside by any higher Forum. That being so, merely because the respondent No.4 has moved an application for grant of succession certificate, it cannot be a ground delaying the payment of terminal dues of deceased employee to a nominated wife, which according to law is legally married wife.