Delhi High Court
Anita Devi & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 19 May, 2014
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 932/2010
ANITA DEVI & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through None.
Reserved on : 2nd May, 2014
% Date of Decision : 19th May, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
CM Appl, 5755/2014 (restoration) in W.P.(C) 932/2010
Keeping in view the averments made in the application along with the
personal affidavit of the counsel, present application is allowed and the
order dated 15th April, 2014 dismissing the writ petition is recalled.
W.P.(C) 932/2010 & CM Appl. 1936/2010
1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"i) Call for the records relating to late Girdhari Rai lying with the
Respondent Authorities;
ii) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/direction to quash the order/decision dated
23.12.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent Resident
Commissioner, Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi;
iii) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/direction directing the Respondent Authorities to
release the monetary benefits arising due to the death of
the deceased employee late Girdhari Rai to the
Petitioners herein; and
iv) Pass such other and further order/orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case."
2. The facts of the present writ petition are that petitioner No.1, who
claims to be the second wife of late Mr. Girdhari Rai who worked in
respondent No.1-Bihar Bhawan, seeks pension and insurance benefits.
3. This is the second round of litigation as the petitioner had earlier filed
a writ petition being W.P.(C) 1868/2008 which was disposed of with a
direction to respondent No.1 to conduct a 'Fact Finding Enquiry' to
adjudicate the claim and locus of the petitioner No.1 and her children.
4. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, personal hearing to all
concerned parties was given and impugned order was passed whereby all
claims of petitioner No.1 and her children were rejected.
5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners stated that the
petitioner No.1 married Mr. Girdhari Rai in the year 1986 and had been
living together since then and therefore, her five children (four sons and one
daughter) were entitled to claim pension and insurance benefits.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Finance
Department Notification no.10059/(-sic) dated 6.9.96 which provided for
insurance/pension benefits to the minor children of the second wife.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that respondent
no.1 had categorically acknowledged the wedding between the deceased and
petitioner no.1 in its reply filed in the first round of litigation.
8. Learned counsel of the petitioners also stated that the late Girdhari
Rai had informed petitioner no.1 that he had made no nomination for
insurance/pension benefits and the name/names as nominee had been
subsequently added with the connivance of respondent officials.
9. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar lastly submitted that respondent no.1 with
malafide intention paid the entire claim for pension/insurance to the first
wife and her children. He stated that the first wife did not provide any
relationship proof in support of her claim, whereas the petitioner no.1 had
submitted various documents such as Central Bank account, LIC Policy,
Ration Card and affidavits prepared by late Girdhari Rai.
10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners
also relied on Rameshwari Devi v State of Bihar and Others (2000) 2 SCC
431 wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the entitlement of minor children
of the second wife to insurance and pension benefits.
11. This Court on a reading of the Impugned Order of respondent No.1 is
of the view that action of the respondent no.1 cannot be termed as unfair or
arbitrary. The respondent no.1 in the impugned order has stated that as they
were never informed by the late Girdhari Rai of his second marriage,
therefore the Finance Department Notification no.10059/(-sic) dated 6.9.96
providing for payment of family pension to minor children born out of
second wife will not apply.
12. Respondent no.1 in the impugned order also pointed out that in their
records the first wife and her children were the petitioner's nominee in
pension and group insurance account. In fact, in the present proceedings this
Court cannot reach a conclusion that the alleged nomination by the late
Girdhari Rai of his late wife and children has been done fraudulently or
subsequently. Further as the present writ petition consists of various
disputed questions of facts, a writ petition is not maintainable.
13. The petitioners also cannot rely on Rameshwari case (supra) since in
that case the deceased employee had not nominated anyone for his insurance
and pension benefits.
14. It is pertinent to mention that the Apex Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi
and another vs. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346 has held that a mere
nomination does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any
beneficial interest in the amount payable under the insurance policy on the
death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is
authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a
valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can
be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of
succession governing them.
15. The Supreme Court in Vishin N. Khanchandani and Another vs.
Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 724 has
also held as under:-
"14. Under the circumstances, this appeal is allowed with a
direction that the succession certificates shall be issued in
favour of the respondents in respect of debts detailed in
Annexures A and B to the application filed in the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Thane subject to their payment of
necessary court fees and estate duty certificate. The
respondents would, however, not be entitled to directly receive
the amounts payable on account of debts payable under
National Savings Certificates at Sl. Nos. 17 to 26 in Annexure A
and Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 in Annexure B. The appellants are held
entitled to receive the sum due on the aforesaid National
Savings Certificates in which they are the nominees upon
furnishing the undertaking in terms of sub-section (2) of Section
8 to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. The
amount received by the appellants on account of the National
Savings Certificates in which they are nominees shall be
payable to the respondents after deduction of the amounts of
debts or other demands lawfully paid or discharged, if any.
Costs made easy."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that if the
petitioners have any claim, it should be directed against Mr. Girdhari Rai's
alleged nominee.
17. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to petitioners to file appropriate legal proceedings
against legal heirs of Mr. Girdhari Rai's first wife.
18. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits
of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 19, 2014
ro
