Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, GITA GOPI, JJ.
Bharati Ramrangila Mor D/O Late Shri Ram Rangila Ram Lakhan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 21702 of 2019
Decided on : 31-03-2021
CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 54 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 372 – Family Pension – Benefits of – Legal Heirs - Seeking directing the respondent authorities to make payment of family pension and other benefits of petitioner’s late father with Service and Pension Payment Order to petitioners along with interest at earliest - petitioners are the unmarried and dependent daughters of late Shri Ram Rangila Ram Lakhan with Service and Pension Payment Order - Petitioners' father late Mason of the Office of the Garrison Engineer retired on 28.02.1998 and thereafter, he passed away on 23.12.2003.
Finding of the court: When the relationship of the petitioner with the retired employee cannot be questioned in wake of pedigree prepared by Talati-cum-Mantri and the employee who was retired in the year 2003 may not be an occasion to introduce his daughter as dependent and the nomination was already in the name of his wife, the rejection on the part of the trial court for grant of succession certificate was based not on the absence of any relationship of the petitioner with the deceased employee, but, such application for grant of pension, according to the court, as mentioned hereinabove is not fitting into the scheme of the Act. The pension, according to the court, would neither get covered under the debt and security and pension is governed by the service rules.
Result: Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
MS. SONIA GOKANI, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondent authorities to make payment of family pension and other benefits of late Shri Ram Rangila Ram Lakhan with Service No.MES/101944 and Pension Payment Order No.C/ENG/11700/97 to the petitioners along with interest at the earliest.
2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under:
2.1 The petitioners are the unmarried and dependent daughters of late Shri Ram Rangila Ram Lakhan with Service No.MES/101944 and Pension Payment Order No.C/ENG/11700/97. The petitioners' father late Shri Ram Rangila Ram Lakhan, Mason of the Office of the Garrison Engineer retired on 28.02.1998 and thereafter, he passed away on 23.12.2003.
2.2 On 15.03.2004 the certificate was issued by Garrison Engineer – respondent No.3 herein that MES/101944 Shri Ram Rangila Ram Lakhan was working as Mason in the said office retired on 28.02.1998, and as per the record, his wife's name is Sm. Rukmani Ram Rangila, aged 52 years and is eligible for pension as per the Government Existing order.
2.3 The mother of the petitioners and widow of late Shri Ram Rangila Ram Lakhan namely Smt. Rukmaniben was thereafter drawing the family pension of their father and petitioners were dependents on the income of family pension drawn by Smt. Rukmaniben. Smt. Rukmaniben was having a Pension Account No. 10272938780 with State Bank of India, Bhuj Main Branch. The petitioners' mother also passed away on 30.01.2014. A legal notice came to be issued on 22.03.2014 through the advocate requesting them to provide correct legal guidance for procuring legal family pension for unmarried daughters of retired persons.
2.4 According to the petitioners, as per Rule 54 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, unmarried daughter is entitled to family pension till her marriage or till she starts earning or till she attains 25 years of age whichever is earlier. It further provides that unmarried daughter beyond 25 years of age is entitled to family pension in terms of Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare Office Memorandum No. 1/19/03- P&PW(E) dated 06.09.2007 subject to fulfillment of income criteria and other conditions.
2.5 The respondent No.5 directed the respondent No.3 to resubmit the complete documents vide its communication dated 05.07.2014 for grant of family pension claim of unmarried daughter.
2.6 The respondent No.3 vide its communication dated 10.12.2014 requested the petitioner No.1 to submit the legal heirship certificate. On 24.02.2015 the respondent No.3 has forwarded all the documents to the respondent No.5 in triplicate in respect of grant of family pension claim of Ms. Bharatiben R. Mor, unmarried daughter of late Ram Rangila Ram Lakhan. However, the respondent No.3 vide communication dated 31.03.2015 had returned the documents back to the petitioner No.1 on the ground that as per record held with the said office, the name of Ms. Bharatiben R. Mor is not there in the family details duly signed by deceased government servant and counter signed by the Authenticated officer; it was denied.
2.7 The petitioners, thereafter, requested the office of Mamlatdar, Bhuj to issue legal heirship certificate in favour of the petitioners. However, the Office of Mamlatdar, Bhuj, had refused to issue the legal heirship certificate to the Central Government Employees.
2.8 Thereafter, the petitioners on 13.07.2015 had preferred Civil Misc. Application No. 32 of 2015 before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh for getting succession certificate for defence family pension to unmarried and dependent daughters for movable property like pension and pensionary benefits under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh vide order dated 06.10.2018 rejected the Civil Misc. Application No. 32/2015 on the ground that the scope of issuance of succession certificate under S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
