GIRIJABAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition with regard to payment of retiral benefits, gratuity, family pension amount and LIC of her late husband. The husband of the petitioner had been working as driver in Health Department at khaniadana, District Shivpuri. He died on 10-11-2006 during service. As per the petitioner she is wedded wife of Mr. Raghuwar Dayal. They had been living together. There was no child from Raghuwar Dayal. The petitioner submitted applications for payment of retiral benefits of her Late husband, however the department directed the petitioner to submit a succession certificate in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner applied for succession certificate and obtained the succession certificate. Copy of the succession certificate received by the petitioner has been filed alongwith documents. Initially Civil Judge Class i refused to grant succession certificate but subsequently District Judge granted the same vide order dated 5-3-2008. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the return stated that Raghuwar Dayal nominated Smt. Maya Devi as nominee. Thereafter smt. Maya Devi was granted Rs. 25,000/- for the purpose of performance of last customary rites of Raghuwar Dayal. The respondents further submitted that the petitioner was directed to submit a succession certificate and Smt. Maya Devi also claimed pensionary benefits of Raghuwar Dayal. The respondent No. 5 smt. Maya Devi in her return stated that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife therefore, her name was not recorded as nominee by Raghuwar Dayal. It has further been stated that respondent No. 5 Smt. Maya Devi had three children from the wedlock of Raghuwar Dayal namely Kushbu Sahu, Rekha Sahu and dinesh Sahu. The petitioner did not make the answering respondent as party in the succession proceedings and got the succession certificate. The answering respondent also applied for succession certificate.

(2.) THE learned Senior Counsel stated that only a legally married wife and family members of the deceased employee are entitled to receive pension. It has further been stated by Senior Counsel that there is succession certificate in favour of the petitioner. Hence she is entitled for pension. Contrary to this, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 stated that the succession certificate received by the petitioner is not in accordance with law. The answering respondent No. 5, was not added as a party before the Court by the petitioner in succession proceedings and nomination is in favour of answering respondent, hence she is entitled for retiral benefits. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment Vidhyadhari and others Vs. Sukhrana Bai and others, (2008) 2 SCC 238.

(3.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the petitioner is claiming benefit and retiral benefits of Late Shri Raghuwar Dayal as his legally wedded wife. Raghuwar Dayal died on 10-11-2006 and he made nomination in favour of the respondent No. 5 with regard to his retiral benefits. Earlier the petitioner also filed an application under Section 125, Cr. PC for grant of maintenance. The trial Court granted maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month in favour of the petitioner. The High Court also in revision upheld the order of the Trial Court. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the petitioner has some subs-tentative cause and she has interest in the retiral benefits of Late Shri Raghuwar Dayal.