The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of government departments to align their regulations with the law of the land, particularly in matters of succession, to avoid unnecessary harassment to dependents.

A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.

CM-3247-CWP-2018

The application is allowed and succession certificate (Annexure P- 10) is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CWP No.20959 of 2013

Preface:

The controversy that arose in the present petition could have been clearly avoided by the concerned respondent No.3, had the respondent No.3 applied the law governed the parties and also pronounced by the Apex Court authoritatively way back in the year 1984 in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi and another versus Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 Supreme Court, 346. It has been found that in large number of cases the beneficiaries are put to harassment, avoidable litigation caused either because of the faulty rules/regulations/schemes running contrary to the law of succession by which the parties are governed or due to the tendency to avoid taking a decision in accordance with law by projecting preposterous and unacceptable reasons. The case at hand is one such handled by respondent No.3 connected with Army.

Facts:

1. Lance Naik Gurpreet Singh of 55 Engineer Regiment C/o 56 APO, in the Indian Army, while on leave unfortunately met with an accident and accidental death on 06.02.2013. He had nominated his mother-petitioner-Surjit Kaur, as per the Army records but then having come to know about the fact that he had married Smt. Sandeep Kaur- respondent No.6, on 14.02.2010, her name was substituted/entered in the records. The petitioner-mother and respondent No.6-wife of the deceased thus were the only Class I heirs left by the deceased. Thus the case was the simplest one of its kind to take a decision immediately and disburse the amount of AGIF benefits/insurance. Respondent No.3- Army Group Insurance Fund, is a society for management of funds related to pensions for meeting immediate needs of the dependants of the persons dying in accident or otherwise, constituted under the Army Order No. 23/2000 of AGI-Army Insurance Scheme that was framed for implementation of the disbursal of insurance claims. The claim of the petitioner was refuted by respondent No.3. by relying on para 11 of the scheme, which provides that 75% of the insurance claim shall go to the widow of the deceased and the remaining 25% to the mother of the deceased. The scheme also inherently empowers for cancellation of nomination of beneficiaries by respondent No.3 after the death of employee and re-nomination also, which according to the petitioner, is unlawful.

2. In response to the notice of motion, the contesting respondent No.3 has filed reply. The sum and substance of the stand that has been taken is that the petitioner-mother wanted 50% share of death benefits but since the widow-respondent No.6 had declined to have give her consent for the said purpose. Hence, petitioner should obtain succession certificate from the Court. Para 11 of the scheme states that 75% amount has to be given to the wife and children while mother and others shall be given 25% of the total AGIF benefits. According to respondent No.3 the petitioner-mother and the respondent No.6-widow of the deceased fell in dispute and therefore they could not disburse the amount to anybody but have invested the amount in fixed deposit with PNB.

Arguments:

3. In support of the petition the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has obtained succession certificate after being compelled to do so by respondent No.3 and in the process the petitioner had to spend an amount of Rs.50,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was wholly unnecessary for respondent No.3 to ask the petitioner to get succession certificate when there are only two class I heirs namely the petitioner-mother and respondent No.6-widow, asking for the claim of the AGIF benefits. According to the petitioner, therefore, not only that there was an act of negligence but attitude to make harassment to the petitioner and respondent No.6 and therefore the petitioner is entitled to compensatory cost from the respondent No.3.