$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10594/2022 Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

DINESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr Vidya Sagar and Mr Amolak, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC with Ms.

Pragya Bharti, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for following reliefs :

(a) The official commumcation dated 20/23-5-2022 (Annexure-I) rece1ved from the Respondents may be struck down as arbitrary, ultra vires and Illegal, (b) The Respondents may be directed to release the amount of Rs 3,85,684 along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the Petitoners through their elder brother i.e. , Petitoner no.1, on furnishing of an Indemnity bond of the total amount so calculated, (c) allow any other relief as this Hon'ble Court considers would the Petitoners' interests, award costs of this writ petitioner.

2. The Petitioners are the children and legal heirs of late Shri Ram Singh, who retired from the Central Government on 31.12.2000 and passed away on 26.04.2021. In the year 2000, during his service, he was entitled to promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) of the Indian Civil Accounts Service. However, the said promotion was withheld on account of the pendency of a criminal case at that time.

3. Subsequently, in 2012, Shri Ram Singh was acquitted in the said criminal case and, thereafter, requested the concerned authorities to grant him the promotional and consequential pensionary benefits. However, the same was declined on the ground that he had already been superannuated from service.

4. Aggrieved thereby, he filed W.P. (C) No. 9757/2019 before this Court challenging the refusal and vide judgment dated 10.07.2020, this Court allowed the petition. The said judgement was challenged by the Government before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 14091 of

2020, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2021.

5. The Respondents issued an order dated 13.05.2021 granting promotion retrospectively w.e.f. 24.04.2000 along with refixation of pay and revision of pension. The said promotion order was issued posthumously. Consequently, arrears amounting to Rs. 3,85,684/- became payable. However, vide the impugned order dated 20/23.05.2022, the respondents have insisted upon production of a succession certificate for release of the said amount.

6. In the impugned order dated 20/23.05.2022, reference is made to Office Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 and 06.04.2022 to require the petitioner to produce the succession certificate.

7. A careful perusal of the Office Memoranda dated 10.07.2013 and

06.04.2022 issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare indicates that in cases where no valid nomination exists, insistence on a succession certificate is not envisaged as an invariable requirement. The said instructions categorically contemplate release of arrears of pension or family pension on the basis of satisfactory documentary proof establishing the claimant’s relationship and legal heirship, thereby obviating unnecessary hardship to the beneficiaries. The petitioners, however, submits that the survivorship certificate has been produced and the same should suffice the requirement of compliance.

8. It is stated that, except the petitioners, there is no legal heir of the deceased late Shri Ram Singh. They also submit that even after the expiry of late Shri Ram Singh, no other claimant has laid any claim on the deceased pension etc.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C. K. Prahalada and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 577, State of Chhattisgargh and Ors. vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600, decisions of this Court in the case of Kamaldeep Kaur Wahi vs. Director of Education, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1480, Krishna Sobti vs. State, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3152, Santosh Khurana vs. S