A succession certificate does not confer a beneficial interest in the amount payable under the D.C.R.B. Rules. It only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount.

Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. The issue which arises in the present petition is whether a person who is not a member of the family of a deceased employee of the State of West Bengal as defined under the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as ‘D.C.R.B. Rules’] is entitled to the death-cum-retirement benefits due under these Rules. Would the mere fact that a person who is a relative of the employee and has obtained the succession certificate entitle him to such benefits although he is not a part of the family of the deceased employee under the aforesaid Rules?

2. The facts which give rise to this petition are as follows:

One Ramesh Chandra Ghosh was working as a Work Assistant in the office of the Public Health Engineering Directorate, Kalyani, Government of West Bengal. He died on 13th August, 2006 prior to reaching the age of superannuation. He was unmarried and had nominated his nephews to receive the benefits under the D.C.R.B. Rules.

3. On the death of Ramesh Chandra Ghosh, his brother, the petitioner, obtained a succession certificate from the competent Court. Ramesh Chandra had three sisters and the petitioner was his only brother. It appears that the succession certificate has been issued on 22nd August, 2010 only in favour of the petitioner, to the exclusion of the sisters of Ramesh Chandra, although they were parties to the application made for issuance of the succession certificate.

4. Armed with this succession certificate the petitioner approached the respondents to claim the Death Gratuity of Rs.1,97,625/- (Rupees one lac ninety seven thousand six hundred and twenty five), an amount of Rs.62,223/- (Rupees sixty two thousand two hundred and twenty three) payable under the Group Insurance Scheme and Rs.2,17,054/-(Rupees two lacs seventeen thousand and fifty four) with the accumulated interest lying to the credit of Ramesh Chandra in the General Provident Fund. As the authorities did not respond to his request to release the amount, the petitioner preferred the Original Application no. 1203 of 2012 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. This application was disposed of on 17th June, 2013 by the Tribunal directing the State to decide the claim of the petitioner within three months of the communication of the order.

5. The petitioner submitted the requisite documents which were sought by the respondents. However, the respondents communicated to the petitioner that since Ramesh Chandra nominated his nephews as required under the D.C.R.B. Rules, the petitioner was not entitled to any amount.

6. Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner moved the Tribunal once again by preferring Original Application no.1330 of 2013. The Tribunal decided the application in the absence of the representative for the State as nobody had appeared for the State before the Tribunal, though served. The Tribunal was of the view that a nominee is the only person who can receive the amount payable under the D.C.R.B. Rules on the death of a Government employee. The succession certificate secured by the petitioner would be of no avail in the case of a nomination made under the aforesaid Rules, held the Tribunal.

7. The petitioner has impugned this order of the Tribunal in the present petition. Mr. D. N. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that once there is a succession certificate issued in favour of a person, the nomination made in favour of another would have no relevance, as it is only the person who is issued a succession certificate who can avail of the amount. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the nomination in favour of the nephews was found to be defective by the authorities and therefore the petitioner was entitled to the amount. The learned Counsel has relied on the judgment in the case of Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta reported (2009) 10 SCC 680 to fortify his submission that with the grant of a succession certificate, the nomination would not