SURJIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm-3247-Cwp-2018

(2.) In response to the notice of motion, the contesting respondent No.3 has filed reply. The sum and substance of the stand that has been taken is that the petitioner-mother wanted 50% share of death benefits but since the widow-respondent No.6 had declined to have give her consent for the said purpose. Hence, petitioner should obtain succession certificate from the Court. Para 11 of the scheme states that 75% amount has to be given to the wife and children while mother and Others shall be given 25% of the total AGIF benefits. According to respondent No.3 the petitioner-mother and the respondent No.6-widow of the deceased fell in dispute and therefore they could not disburse the amount to anybody but have invested the amount in fixed deposit with PNB.

(3.) In support of the petition the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has obtained succession certificate after being compelled to do so by respondent No.3 and in the process the petitioner had to spend an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was wholly unnecessary for respondent No.3 to ask the petitioner to get succession certificate when there are only two class I heirs namely the petitioner-mother and respondent No.6-widow, asking for the claim of the AGIF benefits. According to the petitioner, therefore, not only that there was an act of negligence but attitude to make harassment to the petitioner and respondent No.6 and therefore the petitioner is entitled to compensatory cost from the respondent No. According to the counsel for the petitioner in 1984 the law was clarified and pronounced by the Apex Court.