RAVINDER KOUR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners happen to be the parents of one Balbir Singh who was serving as constable NO.911325971 in CRPF and died in harness in an IED blast triggered by militants on national highway at Ramsoo Tehsil Banihal when, on 11.11.2002, he alongwith other constables was travelling in a bus forming part of a convoy from Srinagar to Jammu. The tragic blast consumed lives of three CRPF Jawans including Balbir Singh while some others sustained injuries. Case for offence under Section 302/307 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act came to be registered in this regard. Body of deceased was brought to his home village for cremation and the same was consigned to flames at Shastri Nagar Crematorium with full Military Honours. The deceased was the eldest son of petitioners. It is claimed by petitioners that the deceased had, at the time of joining service, nominated his mother Ravinder Kour- petitioner No.1 as nominee in the official records which continued to operate till his death. The deceased was married to respondent no.4 Kamaljit Kour. However, respondent no.4 left the house of petitioners after the death of Balbir Singh and started living with her parents. It is alleged that respondent no.4 received maximum monetary benefits from Central Government at the back of petitioners and was also pursuing her case for grant of family pension.

(2.) It is the further case of petitioners that respondent no.4 has obtained a succession certificate from Court of Civil Judge Batala in regard to service benefits of deceased and in view of the same respondent no.3 has asked petitioner no.1 to get the matter regarding payment of death cum retirement gratuity settled. Petitioners claim to have replied the communication stating that respondent No.4 has obtained succession certificate by misrepresentation of facts without arraying petitioners as a party before the Civil Court. Petitioners also claimed that petitioner no.1 being the nominee of deceased was entitled to receive the death cum retirement gratuity of deceased. That respondent no.3 again sent a communication to petitioners stating that respondent no.4 had filed an affidavit for disbursement of pension as well as DCRG in her favour; therefore, petitioner no.1 was directed to get the matter settled from the Court of law.

(3.) According to petitioners, the deceased suffered fatal injuries at Ramsoo Tehsil Banihal and he was cremated at Shastri Nagar Jammu. He was not a resident of Batala. Thus the Civil Court at Batala had no jurisdiction to issue the succession certificate. It is further claimed that in terms of Rule 50 of Central Civil Services Pension Rules of 1972 death cum retirement gratuity of a deceased employee is payable only to a nominee and since petitioner no.1 was a nominee, she was the only person entitled to receive the same.