Advocates:
['V R WAZIR', 'SR ADV', '', 'P N BHAT', 'P S CHANDEL', 'CGSC', '', 'S HAKIM DY AG']

1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

OWP No.80/2007, CMA No.102/2007

Date of Judgment: 06/08/2014

Ravinder Kour and anr.

Vs.

UOI and ors.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bansi Lal Bhat-Judge

Appearing counsel:

For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.V.R.Wazir, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Manish, Advocate.

For Respondents (s)

: Mr.P.S.Chandel, CGSC

Whether approved for reporting in law journals?

:

Yes/No

Whether approved for publishing Press/Media ?

: Yes/No/Optional

1. Petitioners happen to be the parents of one Balbir Singh

who was serving as constable NO.911325971 in CRPF

and died in harness in an IED blast triggered by

militants on national highway at Ramsoo Tehsil Banihal

when, on 11.11.2002, he alongwith other constables

was travelling in a bus forming part of a convoy from

Srinagar to Jammu. The tragic blast consumed lives of

three CRPF Jawans including Balbir Singh while some

others sustained injuries. Case for offence under

Section 302/307 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act came to be

registered in this regard. Body of deceased was brought

to his home village for cremation and the same was

consigned to flames at Shastri Nagar Crematorium with

2

full Military Honours. The deceased was the eldest son

of petitioners. It is claimed by petitioners that the

deceased had, at the time of joining service, nominated

his mother Ravinder Kour- petitioner No.1 as nominee

in the official records which continued to operate till his

death. The deceased was married to respondent no.4 –

Kamaljit Kour. However, respondent no.4 left the house

of petitioners after the death of Balbir Singh and started

living with her parents. It is alleged that respondent

no.4 received maximum monetary benefits from Central

Government at the back of petitioners and was also

pursuing her case for grant of family pension.

2. It is the further case of petitioners that respondent no.4

has obtained a succession certificate from Court of Civil

Judge Batala in regard to service benefits of deceased

and in view of the same respondent no.3 has asked

petitioner no.1 to get the matter regarding payment of

death cum retirement gratuity settled. Petitioners claim

to have replied the communication stating that

respondent No.4 has obtained succession certificate by

misrepresentation of facts without arraying petitioners

as a party before the Civil Court. Petitioners also

claimed that petitioner no.1 being the nominee of

deceased was entitled to receive the death cum

retirement gratuity of deceased. That respondent no.3

3

again sent a communication to petitioners stating that

respondent no.4 had filed an affidavit for disbursement

of pension as well as DCRG in her favour; therefore,

petitioner no.1 was directed to get the matter settled

from the Court of law.

3. According to petitioners, the deceased suffered fatal

injuries at Ramsoo Tehsil Banihal and he was cremated

at Shastri Nagar Jammu. He was not a resident of

Batala. Thus the Civil Court at Batala had no

jurisdiction to issue the succession certificate. It is

further claimed that in terms of Rule 50 of Central Civil

Services Pension Rules of 1972 death cum retirement

gratuity of a deceased employee is payable only to a

nominee and since petitioner no.1 was a nominee, she

was the only person entitled to receive the same.

4. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed objections pleading that it

was learnt after the death of deceased that the

deceased, despite being married, had not submitted any

nomination in favour of his wife but nomination was

available in favour of his Mother – Ravinder Kour –

petitioner no.1. Therefore, respondent no.4 – the wife of

deceased was directed to submit succession certificate

and she submitted the succession certificate issued by

Sub Judge, Junior Division Batala exercising powers of

District Judge Gurdaspur under Indian Succession Act.

4

Accordingly payment of