Nitin Choudhary And Others vs Managing Director,Food Corp. Of ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 4586 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41491 of 2008
 

 
Petitioner :- Nitin Choudhary And Others
 
Respondent :- Managing Director,Food Corp. Of India,N.D.And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,J.P.Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,K.K.Singh,Lal Babu Lal,N.P.Singh,R.S.Kushwaha,S.C.,Sanjaysrivastav,Satya Prakash
 

 
AND
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16054 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Nitin Chaudhary
 
Respondent :- Union Of India & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Asgi,K.K.Singh,N.P. Singh,Satya Prakash,SC
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Two factions of late Atma Ram who was employed with the Food Corporation of India have petitioned this Court with respect to their claim of retiral benefits and dues of the deceased employees and for the grant of compassionate appointment.

While Writ Petition No. 41491 of 2008 has been preferred by the heirs from the so called first wife of late Atma Ram with a prayer that all post death benefits be paid to them and that their claim be also considered, Writ Petition No. 16054 of 2010 has been filed by the same petitioners assailing the validity of an order dated 17 February 2010 by which their claim for compassionate appointment has come to be rejected.

In the first writ petition an application for impleadment/intervention has been made by and on behalf of Smt. Kusum Devi who is stated to be the second wife of Late Atma Ram. Her impleadment in the proceedings was allowed on 21 May 2010 and she has also filed a response through counsel in these proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioners while addressing the Court on the issue of grant of retiral dues to the petitioners who are the heirs through the first wife of Late Atma Ram has submitted that although Smt. Kusum Devi was shown as a nominee in the records of the deceased employee, she holds the retiral benefits only in trust and for the purposes of distribution amongst all the heirs of the late Atma Ram. It is his submission that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the three petitioners are the progeny from the first wife of Late Sri Atma Ram and therefore they would be entitled to a share in the corpus which forms the retiral benefits/dues payable and or paid by the Corporation.

Insofar as the stand taken by the Corporation is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Corporation is for unjustified reasons requiring the petitioners to obtain a succession certificate and other documents to establish the fact that they are heirs from the first wife of late Atma Ram. He submits that the stand of the Corporation is not tenable inasmuch as while rejecting their claim for compassionate appointment, no objection was taken to the fact that the petitioners were not the heirs of Late Atma Ram.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to the educational testimonials of the petitioners to contend that in all such documents including the family register, ration card, mark sheets etc., the late Atma Ram was shown as the father of the petitioners and therefore it is contended that the objection taken by the Corporation is not liable to be countenanced.

Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has drawn the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed in the two writ petitions to state and contend that all documents and records in possession of the Corporation indicated that Smt. Kusum Devi was recorded as the nominee. It is his further submission that the late Atma Ram legally married Kusum Devi in 1986 and had looked after the petitioners who were at that time minors. The Corporation further contends that from the second marriage also two heirs were born and that payments have been made to Smt. Kusum Devi who was the legally wedded second wife and stood recorded as the nominee. It is lastly submitted that the Corporation does not dispute the fact that if the petitioners are treated to be the heirs from the first wife, they would be entitled to a share in the retiral benefits of the deceased employee. What is submitted however is that they must produce appropriate documentation in the shape of a succession certificate or a decree of the Civil Court to establish that they are the heirs of late Atma Ram.

Learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent has referred to the various pleas taken in the affidavit to contend that the dues have been rightly paid to the sixth respondent  and that since she is the nominee, she is liable to hold the same for the purpose of distribution amongst the heirs of late Atma Ram. Learned counsel has further referred to the various pleadings taken in the counter affidavits to contend that the petitioners had ill treated Atma Ram during his life time and therefore he submits that no equity operates in their favour.

The payment of retiral benefits of a deceased employee and the position of a nominee is no longer res integra. The law on the subject stands duly laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi and another Vs. Smt. Usha Devi [1984 (1) SCC 424] as reiterated in Vishin Lachmandas Khanchandani and another [2000 (6) SCC 724] and in Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and others [2010 (2) AWC 1492].

In Sarbati Devi (supra), the Supreme Court held that the act of nomination does not confer or clothe the nominee with any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. Their Lordship's have held that the act of nomination only indicates the hand which is  authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The principles laid down in this judgment although in the context of a life insurance policy were adopted and applied in Vishin Lachmandas Khanchandani (supra) which related to payment under the National Saving Certificates and in Shipra Sengupta (supra) which related to payment of insurance, gratuity, public provident fund, general provident fund etc.

The above principles, which have been consistently followed clearly establish that the nominee holds the payments of the pensionery benefits or retiral dues in trust to be distributed amongst the heirs of the deceased. Although this principle is not disputed by the learned counsels opposing the writ petition, while the Corporation on the one hand requires the petitioners to furnish a succession certificate or a decree of a Civil Court, the counsel for the sixth respondent submits that on account of the manner in which they conducted themselves during the life time of late Atma Ram, they are not entitled to any relief.

The Court, however, finds that neither the Corporation nor the sixth respondent deny the fact that the petitioners were the progeny from the first wife of late Atma Ram. In fact in para 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it is admitted that the petitioners were in fact looked after by Atma Ram and his second wife during their minority. The Court further finds that the Corporation has failed to take into consideration the various documents which have been brought on record by the petitioners to establish and indicate that they were in fact the heirs from the first wife. These documents which form part of the record have not been disbelieved or rejected by the Corporation. The sixth respondent also does not deny that the petitioners were heirs from the first wife.

As noted above, the only objection which was taken was that on account of their conduct and behaviour with late Atma Ram, no amounts were liable to be given or released in their favour. Obviously, this cannot be an objection sustainable in law. The nominee holds the retiral dues and the corpus of payments made in respect of the deceased employee by virtue of being a person designated to receive the same. He/she however does not obtain any beneficial interest or supervening character by virtue of the act of nomination. The amounts must therefore necessarily be distributed in accordance with law amongst all heirs of the deceased employee. Of course, the Corporation while seeking to safeguard its interest can always undertake a requisite enquiry through various documents which are relied upon or may even go to that extent of asking for a no objection certificate or an indemnity bond. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in this connection correctly referred the Court to a report submitted by the officers of the Corporation itself which recorded the fact that the petitioners were in fact the heirs of the deceased employee.

Consequently and in light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that issue of payment of retiral benefits to the nominee and distribution amongst the heirs of the late Atma Ram needs to be revisited and reconsidered by the Corporation. Insofar as the claim for grant of compassionate appointment is concerned, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 16054 of 2010 categorically states and holds that the late Atma Ram was at the relevant time staying with Smt. Kusum Devi and the two children borne out from the second marriage. It is its stand that it was Smt. Kusum Devi and the two progeny borne out from the second marriage who were directly dependent upon the late Atma Ram. Consequently this Court finds no error in the adjudication undertaken by the Corporation in this regard.

Accordingly while Writ Petition No. 16054 of 2010 shall stand dismissed for the reasons aforementioned directions, Writ Petition No. 41491 of 2008 shall stand disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to move in the matter afresh and in light of the observations made herein above. The exercise to be undertaken by the Corporation in light of the aforementioned directions shall be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months form the date of production of a certified copy of this order. All further payments to be made to the contesting factions shall abide by the final decision which the Corporation may now proceed to take. It is needles to add but it is so observed that in respect of moneys already disbursed to the sixth respondent, the Corporation shall stand absolved and it would be open to the petitioners to lay their claims against the sixth respondent only.

Order Date :- 26.11.2015

nethra