GAYATRI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.M. Prasad, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is widow and petitioner No. 2 is son of late Sadashiv Chaudhary, who died in harness on 17 -7 -1984. The deceased was working as Peon in Teachers Training Mahila Vidyalaya, Bhagalpur and after rendering service for about 23 years 3 months and 17 days he died in harness. The claim of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they have been kept deprived of full family pension, part of gratuity and the amount of provident fund payable to them after the death of the deceased Government servant.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur (Respondent No. 2) and also on behalf of Accountant -General, who is permitted to be added as Respondent No. 6. From the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, it appears that after the death of the employee, provisional pension and gratuity amounting to Rs. 16,402.75 and Rs. 6,642/ - respectively was sanctioned on 7 -8 -1992 and paid to the petitioner vide receipt (Annexure -A). It is stated that subsequently one Tara Kant Choudhary, sister's son of the deceased employee filed a petition before the answering Respondent objecting the claim of the petitioner and claiming that he is legal heir of the deceased employee and hence all retiral benefits should be paid to him. On inquiry, Respondent No. 2 found that the deceased -employee had filed nomination paper in 1971 nominating said Tarakant Chaudhary and Savitri Devi for his G.P.F. amount. Under such circumstances, Commissioner vide order dated 10 -7 -96, contained in Annexure -B, directed the parties to produce succession certificate and only after production of succession certificate payments were directed to be made. It is alleged that the petitioner did not file succession certificate and as such they were not paid the aforementioned dues. According to the affidavit on behalf of Account -ant -General, necessary authorisation were issued as per the sanction order received from the sanctioning authority.

(3.) Mr. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner, contained in Annexure -B is bad in law and not tenable in absence of any dispute that the petitioner No. 1 is the legally -wedded wife and petitioner No. 2 is son of the deceased -employee. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged nomination made in favour of Tarakant Chaudhary cannot come in the way of the petitioners from getting death -cum - retiral dues payable after the death of the deceased -employee as it was not valid nomination under the provisions contained in Rule 8 of the Bihar G.P.F. Rules, 1948 and Clause 3(2) of Appendix V to Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which provide that no nomination can be made in favour of any persons, other than family members where the subscriber has a family. The family is defined under Clause (c) of Sub -rule (i) of Rule 2 of G.P.F. Rules, 1948 with respect to G.P.F. Account and Sub -clause (a) of Clause 3 of Appendix -V dealing with the case of pension and gratuity. As per the said definitions family means "in case of male subscriber wile or wives and children of a subscriber; and the widow or widows and children of a deceased son of the subscriber." It was, thus, submitted that in absence of any dispute that petitioner No. 1 is widow and petitioner No. 2 is son of the deceased -employee were entitled to receive the aforementioned dues. In view of the aforementioned provisions, learned Counsel for the State has not been able to defend the stand of the Respondents for withholding the payment of the remaining post -retiral dues to the petitioners on account of nomination made in favour of Tarakant Chaudhary. Learned Counsel for the State has failed to point out any provision under which a person is required to file succession certificate, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned. In view of the said specific provisions, plea of the Respondents in keeping the petitioners deprived of the aforementioned legitimate dues now for over 15 years deserves to be deprecated.