Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1788
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR
S. Sandhya & Others
Versus
The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Others
W.P.No.29894 of 2002
Decided on: 09-04-2012
For the Petitioners:P.V. Balasubramaniam for M/s. BFS Legal Firm, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1-R3 - K.R. Ramesh Kumar, ACGSC, R4 - S. Surya Praksah, Advocate.
Headnote:
The court held that the nomination made by the deceased employee in favor of his brother, who was not a member of the family as defined under the relevant rules, was invalid and did not confer any beneficial interest on the brother. The court further held that the retiral benefits and lump sum amount under the Group Insurance Scheme were to be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession governing them.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased employee, Mr. E. Shivaprakasam, was a Sub Divisional Engineer in the office of the Deputy General Manager (A&T), Chennai-15. He died on 31.03.2002, leaving behind his two daughters as legal heirs. The daughters claimed the retiral benefits, while the deceased's brother, Mr. E. Durairaj, claimed the same on the basis of a nomination made by the deceased in his favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nomination made by the deceased employee in favor of his brother was invalid and did not confer any beneficial interest on the brother. The court further found that the retiral benefits and lump sum amount under the Group Insurance Scheme were to be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession governing them.
Issues: 1. Whether the nomination made by the deceased employee in favor of his brother was valid and conferred any beneficial interest on the brother? 2. Whether the retiral benefits and lump sum amount under the Group Insurance Scheme were to be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession governing them?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nomination made by the deceased employee in favor of his brother was invalid and did not confer any beneficial interest on the brother because: * The brother was not a member of the family as defined under the relevant rules. * The nomination was contrary to the statutory provisions, which did not provide for nomination of the brother of the deceased who had attained the age of 18 years and above. The court further held that the retiral benefits and lump sum amount under the Group Insurance Scheme were to be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession governing them, because: * The nomination only authorized the nominee to receive the amount or manage the property. * The beneficial interest in the property devolved upon the legal heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession governing them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Manager, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madras to disburse the entire amounts deposited to the credit of W.P.No.29894 of 2002 on 24.01.2012 and 24.03.2012 to the petitioners.
1. Daughters of a Sub Divisional Engineer, Transmission Unit, Office of the Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), Chennai, claiming themselves as legal heirs, entitled to the terminal benefits, on account of the death of their father, have sought for a Mandamus, directing to the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the same. The 4th respondent is the brother of the deceased, in whose favour, the nomination has been made, by the employee.
2. According to the petitioners/daughters, their father expired on 31.03.2002, in harness. The marriage between their parents was dissolved by a decree of divorce in 1989. As per the Hindu Succession Act, they are the Class-I heirs and that even if there was any dissolution of marriage between the parents, the right of the children, to seek for retiral benefits, will not be taken away by such dissolution. They also submitted that the 4th respondent, younger brother of their father has staked his claim for the terminal benefits, and due to his illegal claim, terminal benefits have not been sanctioned so far.
3. Petitioners have also submitted that the 4th respondent had already received a sum of Rs.5,000/- and since there was an attempt to withdraw the balance amount of retiral benefits, the present writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus. In addition to the above pleadings Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in ShipraSengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and Others, reported in2009 (10) SCC 680, submitted that the 4th respondent, brother of the deceased, cannot be a recipient of the retiral benefits and at best, he can only be a trustee, for receiving the retiral benefits, on behalf of the legal heirs, entitled to succeed, as per the law of succession, governing them andfor the abovesaid reasons, prayed for a suitable direction to the official respondents, to disburse the retiral benefits due and payable to petitioners' father, to the petitioners.
4. The Deputy General Manager, Acceptance and Testing, T&D Circle, Chennai, in his counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioners' father was working as a Sub Division Engineer in the office of the Deputy General manager (A&T), Chennai-15 and that he expired on 31.03.2002. He has also admitted that the petitioners/children of the abovesaid officer have made a claim for the disbursement of retiral benefits and that they have also produced legal heirship certificate from the concerned revenue authority. The Deputy General Manager, has also stated that a similar claim has also been made by 4th respondent, younger brother of the deceased employee. He has further stated that Mr.E.Sivaprakasam, the deceased employee, during his life time has nominated the 4th respondent, younger brother, to receive the following benefits.
1. Death-cum-retirement gratuity
2. General Provident Fund
3. Central Government Employee Group Insurance.
5. It is the further contention of the above said authority that in view of the rival claims, made by the petitioners and the 4th respondent, the amounts have not been deposited, till the date of filing of the counter affidavit.
6. Record of proceedings shows that when the matter came up on 29.08.2003, after hearing both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Director of BSNL, Chennai, the 3rd respondent, this Court has granted injunction directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein, not to pay the terminal benefits, arising out of the death of the petitioners' father. As there was a dispute, relating to entitlement, the 3rd respondent has been directed to deposit the entire amount in a Fixed Deposit, for a period of three years. On 03.04.2012, when the matter came up for further hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Assistant General Manager (Estt.), has addressed a letter to the Controller of Communication Account, M.P.Telecom Circle, Door Sanchar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-462 015, that he has received an order d
