RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Milap Chandra Jain, J.
Pintoo and Another - Appellant
Versus
Bhoop Singh - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 140 of 1991.
Decided On : 9-02-1994
SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - GRATUITY - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : Section 370, 372, 214, Indian Succession Act, 1925 - SUMMARY : The court held that the petitioner-respondent was not entitled to get a succession certificate in respect of the amount of gratuity as he was not a member of the deceased's family as defined in Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and there was no valid nomination made by the deceased officer.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Keshav Singh, was a bachelor and left no nomination in respect of his gratuity amount. His brother, Bhoop Singh, applied for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The application was opposed by the sons of late Sunder Singh, the deceased's brother.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner-respondent was not entitled to get a succession certificate in respect of the amount of gratuity as he was not a member of the deceased's family as defined in Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and there was no valid nomination made by the deceased officer.
Issues: Whether the petitioner-respondent was entitled to get a succession certificate in respect of the amount of gratuity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner-respondent was not entitled to get a succession certificate in respect of the amount of gratuity as he was not a member of the deceased's family as defined in Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and there was no valid nomination made by the deceased officer.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the order of the learned District Judge, Dholpur dated February 18, 1991 was set aside. The petitioner-respondent was directed to refund the amount, if withdrawn by him, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
"260. Family defined.-(1) For the purpose of this rule-
(a) "Family" shall include the following relatives of the officer-
(i) wife, in the case of a male officer;
(ii) husband, in the case of a female officer;
(iii) sons;
(iv) unmarried and widowed daughters;
(v) brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried or
widowed sisters;
(vi) father, and,
(vii) mother.
Note:-(iii) and (iv) will include step-children."
The statement of the petitioner-respondent was recorded by the learned District Judge on 07.07.88. At that time, he disclosed his age to be 63 years. As such he was not a member of his "family", being over 18 years of age. The Memo No. F. 71 (46) FD. A/Rules/59 dated January 02, 1961 of the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur runs as under :
"A question arose as to whom the amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity should be paid where a Government servant, who died while in service left behind no family as defined in Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and had also not made any nomination.
The question was examined and it is hereby clarified that the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity being of the nature of a gift is payable only to the Government servant himself or in the event of his death, to members of his family, in accordance with Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Where a Government
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.