KAROLEEN SODHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of the writ of mandamus directing respondents to release the amount of gratuity of deceased-Saroj Sodhi and for grant of family pension to the petitioner being the sole nominee of the deceased as per the Registered Will dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure P-3). It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that sister of the petitioner namely Saroj Sodhi was working as a Lecturer in the Education Department, Government of Punjab, since 1992. She was unmarried and was staying with the petitioner. She was working as a Lecturer in English at YRBN Government Senior Secondary School, Darbar Pandori, District Gurdaspur. She unfortunately died on 20.10.2008. Prior to her death, she executed a Registered Will dated 14.09.2006 in favour of the petitioner in which she bequeathed all her service benefits including retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner on the basis of the Will has been released the amount of GPF, General Insurance Scheme benefits and leave encashment of the deceased-Saroj Sodhi. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- as ex-gratia has also been released to her. The benefit of the death cum retirement gratuity and family pension has not been released to the petitioner only on the ground that she is a married sister of the deceased and does not fall within the definition of 'family' as laid down under Rule 6.16-B and 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II (hereinafter referred to 'Rules'). Rule 6.16-B(2) deals with the situation where nomination can be made and if such a nomination is made, the same shall be treated as equal to that of sub-rule (2) and (4) of rule 6.16-A. This would entitle the nominee to release the gratuity under sub-rule (1) of 6.16. On this basis, it has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that a Registered Will having been executed, the same should be treated as a nomination under Rule 6.16-B(2). Merely because the petitioner does not fall within the definition of Rule 6.16-B (1) would not disentitle the petitioner to claim gratuity and other retiral benefits. To support this contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon observations made by this Court in para 8 of the judgment in Mrs. Manju Malhotra v. State of Haryana etc., 2006 3 SCT 538, it has been mentioned that a Will has been executed and that would have an effect of substituting the nomination which has been prescribed under the rules. Prayer has, therefore, on this basis, been made to release the benefits as has been claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has stated that the benefits as claimed by the petitioner being statutory rights will be considered within the framework of the rules itself but if there is no provision for granting the said benefits, the same cannot be released. While referring to the judgment in the case of Mrs. Manju Malhotra, she contends that Will which was registered in favour of the person, fell within the definition of family, it is under those circumstances that the said observations has been made by this Court. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. Rule 6.16-B(1) and (2) reads as follows:--