Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Sanjeev Mehra - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2564 of 2019 and CM No. 11933 of 2019 (for stay)
Decided On : 24-02-2021
A nominee receives terminal benefits in a representative capacity for all heirs, ensuring equitable distribution according to legal succession, particularly emphasizing the rights of minor heirs.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Sections 15 - Nomination rights - The court addressed the issue of the distribution of benefits accruing from the estate of a deceased employee, clarifying that a nominee acts in a representative capacity for all heirs. (Paras 7, 9, 10)
(B) Legal recognition of heirs - The court examined the legal succession applicable to the deceased, affirming that each heir is entitled to an equal share. (Paras 4, 5)
(C) Minors' rights - The court emphasized that the rights of minor heirs cannot be disregarded based on financial status of the parties involved. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, two minor children of a deceased employee, contested the distribution of pension and death benefits, challenging the release of funds to a nominee who had received initial benefits but was not the legal heir.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the equitable distribution of funds among the heirs and recognized the rights of the minors in the estate of the deceased.
Issues: The court addressed the authorization and implications of nomination versus legal inheritance and the rights of minor heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The nominee receives terminal benefits only in a representative capacity, ensuring fair distribution among all heirs, and the rights of minors must be upheld.
Result: Petition disposed of with directives for equitable distribution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inheritance rights of minors (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. nominee is a representative for heirs (Para 3 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. economic status not a legal basis for denial (Para 8) |
| 4. distribution of pension according to rules (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court orders for distribution of estate (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER
1. The petition impugns the order dated 14th February, 2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi (CAT), of dismissal of O.A./100/2482/2017 preferred by the two petitioners, namely Master Sanjeev Mehra and Master Kritagya Mehra, stated to be 15 and 8 years of age respectively and acting through their paternal grandfather Phool Chand Mehra.
2. The petition came up first before this Court on 14th March, 2019, when while issuing notice thereof, the respondents no.1 to 3 namely (i) Union of India; (ii) The Commandant, Central Vehicle Depot; and, (iii) The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, were restrained from releasing any further amounts which may be due in terms of the Rules, to the respondent no.4 Kamlesh.
3. Counter affidavits and rejoinders have been filed and we have heard the counsels.
4. The undisputed facts are, that the two petitioners are the minor sons of late Lovlin Mehra and his first wife late Jaishree, on whose demise the said late Lovlin Mehra married the respondent no.4. The said Lovlin Mehra was employed with the respondents no.1 to 3 as a Civilian Motor Driver (CMD) and died on 24th November, 2016. On enquiry, it is informed that the mother of Lovlin Mehra had pre-deceased him and he was a Hindu by religion and died without leaving any Will. Thus, according to the law succession applicable to the said Lovlin Mehra, the petitioners no.1&2 and the respondent no.4 are his only natural heirs, entitled to inherit 1/3rd share each in his estate.
5. The OA before the CAT was filed by the petitioners, on learning of the respondent no.4, as a nominee in the records of the respondents no.1 to 3, having received death fund of Rs.1,00,000/-from the respondents no.1 to 3 and to restrain the respondents no.1 to 3 from releasing any further amounts due, owing to the demise of Lovlin Mehra, to the respondent no.4 and claiming share therein.
6. On enquiry, it is informed that after the release of the said Rs.1,00,000/-, no other amounts/pension have been disbursed to the respondent no.4 or to anyone till now.
7. It being the settled position in law, as also recognized by CAT in the impugned order, that a nominee receives the terminal benefits of deceased employee only in a representative capacity and for the benefit of all the heirs, we have straightway asked the counsel for the respondents no.4, the objection if any of the respondent no.4, to all the amounts due with respect to the demise of Lovlin Mehra being distributed equally between the two petitioners and the respondent no.4. Reference in this regard may be made to Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta (2009)10 SCC 680 and Sarabati Devi Vs. Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424.
8. The counsel for the respondent no.4, besides relying on the nomination in favour of the respondent no.4 contends that while the paternal grandfather of the petitioners, with whom the petitioners are residing, is monetarily well off, the respondent no.4 is not.
9. However the aforesaid cannot be a consideration in law, for denying the benefits which have accrued to the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners being minors, their rights in law cannot be dealt with.
10. The counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 has drawn our attention to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 applicable and has contended that as per the said Rules, pension is payable equally to the respondent no.4 and to the elder of the two petitioners, till he attains the age of 25 years and thereafter to the younger of the two petitioners, again till he also attains the age of 25 years.
11. Considering the economic strata to which the parties belong, it is not deemed appropriate to re
