SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

PATNA HIGH COURT
Purnendu Singh, J.
Ganga Ram Paswan – Petitioner
versus
Chairman, Bihar State
Electricity Board and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.154 of 2018
Decided on 18.4.2023

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nirbhay Prashant, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma and Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Family pension payable to legal representative of deceased does not need a Succession Certificate, even if it were a debt belonging to deceased – Family pension is an independent claim and cannot be claimed through a deceased employee.

Headnote:

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 372 and 214 – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Sections 18 and 24 – Succession Certificate – Proceeding under Section 372 of Succession Act, 1925 being summary in nature, standard of proof required in such inquiry is adhered or not is to be looked into by a competent civil court – High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with Succession Certificate on which basis retiral dues has been paid to petitioner – Grant of succession certificate does not determine question of title – It merely enables party to whom a certificate is granted to collect any debts or securities belonging to deceased – Family pension payable to legal representative of deceased does not need a Succession Certificate, even if it were a debt belonging to deceased – Family pension is an independent claim and cannot be claimed through a deceased employee – Pension is not a debt, rather property – Board never recognized petitioner as husband of deceased employee – Paternity of child will not prove that there was a marriage – Petitioner has not been able to adduce satisfactory evidence to show that marriage of petitioner was solemnized under Special Marriage Act – Writ petition dismissed – Board directed to consider claim of petitioner, in case petitioner obtains declaration of competent Court with respect to his marriage with deceased employee – If marriage is found to be fictitious, Board may proceed to recover amount already paid on account of death cum retiral dues to petitioner. (Paras 19, 21, 22, 23, 24,

25, 27, 29, 30 and 31)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT (C.A.V.)

Heard Mr. Nirbhay Prashant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - Bihar State Electricity Board.

2. In the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):—

“(i) that to issue an appropriate writs, order/s, order/s or direction/s in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.08.2005 and order dated 15.02.2016 whereby and whereunder the claim of the pension was negated by the Bihar State Electricity Board (here-in-after referred as the Board).

(ii) that to issue an appropriate writ/s, orders/s or direction/s in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner as early as possible and to pay the same to petitioner on month to month basis.

(iii) that any other releif or reliefs for which the petitioner be found entitled in law be granted to him.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that one Mrs. Prema Devi (deceased) was earlier married to Ram Prakash Chaudhary, an employee of the respondent Board and he died on 30.04.1993 in harness and therefore, his widow, Mrs. Prema Devi was appointed as Class-IV employee on compassionate ground on 16.11.1994. The petitioner claims that he married with Mrs. Prema Devi on 27.09.1993 and obtained marriage certificate from marriage Registrar, thereafter, they lived as husband and wife. Subsequently, Prema Devi died on 07.01.1995 leaving behind the petitioner and her minor son, Mr. Alok Kumar Paswan @ Gandhi as their legal heir and representatives. After the death of Late Prema Devi, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 6243 of 2003 for a direction to the authorities of the respondent Board to make payment of entire dues amount of death cum retiral benefits payable to Late Prema Devi. During the pendency, almost all the dues were paid to the petitioner on the basis of succession certificate. However, certain due and the claim of family pension was not considered. This Court vide order dated 09.09.2003 disposed of the writ petition inter alia by making following observation and directions:—

“From the materials on record it appears that in a title suit the claim of Mantun Kumar Singh of being the adopted son of the late wife of the petitioner has been rejected by a Court of competent jurisdiction. As far as Alok Kumar is concerned, he is the son of the petitioner which is not disputed and further he has not raised any objection. It further appears that the respondent Company itself accepts that the petitioner was the husband of the deceased employee and that the deceased employee herself was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of her first husband. Thus, there is no controversy about the petitioner being the second husband who was married during lifetime of the first spouse.

Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the Company is not in a position to defend the act of the Company in not paying the remaining dues to the petitioner. The matter being very old, the Court proposed to take judicial notice of the delay and pass strict orders. However, in view of the assurance given to the Court by the learned counsel for the Company, the matter is being disposed off with a direction to the respondent Company to clear the remaining dues admissible to the petitioner, on account of the death of his wife, latest by 15th January, 2015. In the event, the Company fails to live up to its commitment before the Court the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application in the present proceeding itself bringing such fact to the notice of the Court for passing appropriate orders.

In view of the admitted position that cost of Rs. 1,000/- has not been paid to the petitioner in terms of order dated 09.09.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6243 of 2003, the petitioner shall also be entitled to cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid together with the other dues.

The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.”

4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top