USHA KUMARI Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A man may die leaving both movable and immovable properties. Unless he dies leaving a Will duly executed by him during his lifetime, the property so left by him vests in his heirs by operation of law. The terminal dues due to an employee as well as his pensionary dues, but not family pension, are properties earned by the deceased employee during his lifetime and left by him as movable properties for his heirs. In the event such movable properties are in the hands of third parties and unless the deceased employee has made a nomination in favour of anyone to receive such movable properties from the third party, it may not be possible for the third party to obtain a proper discharge in relation to the debt due by him to the deceased employee and, accordingly, only in relation to such movable properties the Indian Succession Act provides for obtaining of a Succession Certificate. In the event a heir of a deceased employee is entitled to a part of the movable properties left by the deceased government employee, but the same has been collected by the nominee, it is well within the competence of such heir to recover his share in such properties from the nominee. When the law of succession has entitled a heir to have his share in the property left, he is entitled to the same unless as aforesaid a bequest is made in favour of some one else by a Will by the deceased. It is not a requirement under the Indian Succession Act to obtain a Succession Certificate to show and demonstrate that the person applying for is a heir of the deceased. In order to be a heir of first class in terms of the Hindu Succession Act the person claiming to be a heir must be either the widow or a son or a daughter or mother or a wife of a pre -deceased son. In the absence of a Succession Certificate it cannot be said that the person claiming to be the son of the deceased is not the son of the deceased. It has to be ascertained independent of a Succession Certificate whether the person claiming to be the son of the deceased is, in fact, the son of the deceased, if there is any doubt on that score. The Policy, in the instant case, permits a son to apply for and obtain a compassionate appointment. The Policy prescribes a proforma for making such application. The proforma specifies that it must be indicated in the application as to when and how much of the terminal or pensionary dues have been released, but since the petitioner is unable to furnish such particulars, inasmuch as there is no nomination in favour of anyone and, accordingly, the heirs are fighting in court for establishing their right in such properties left by the deceased employee, which are in the hands of the University in the form of terminal or pensionary dues, it cannot be said that the application for compassionate appointment shall not be considered until such time the particulars as are required to be furnished in regard to payment or release of the terminal or pensionary dues are furnished. it is to be kept in mind that the proforma does not require furnishing of any Succession Certificate. For the reasons already indicated above, Succession Certificates are required only for the purpose of giving due discharge to third party in whose custody movable properties of the deceased are lying.

(2.) IN those circumstances, the decision of the University not to consider the application of the petitioner until such time the Succession Certificate is furnished by the petitioner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the University to reconsider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on its merit and in accordance with law as quickly as possible but not later than twelve weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the University. It shall be well within the competence of the University, if the University is doubtful whether the petitioner is a legitimate son of the deceased, to take such recourse as the University may desire.