Delhi High Court
Dhanna Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 20 March, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.7287/2001
% 20th March, 2015
DHANNA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner, who is the father of the deceased Smt. Jasbir Kaur,
the employee of the respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation, seeks the
relief of being granted GPF and other service benefits which were payable
on account of services rendered by Smt. Jasbir Kaur with the respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that his daughter
Smt. Jasbir Kaur got married to Sh. Balbir Singh on 10.10.1997 but she was
manhandled for bringing insufficient dowry and thrown out of the
matrimonial home on 3.11.1997 i.e even before the second month of
marriage. Thereafter, Smt. Jasbir Kaur always lived with the petitioner-
father. Smt. Jasbir Kaur was never looked after by her husband Sh. Balbir
Singh. Smt. Jasbir Kaur was a patient of Cronic Renal Failure and she died
on 20.8.2000 in her parental home i.e with the petitioner. The husband of
Smt. Jasbir Kaur never came for a single day either during the ailment of
Smt. Jasbir Kaur or for performing the last rites of Smt. Jasbir Kaur.
Petitioner vide his letter dated 7.11.2000 sought the release of GPF amount
lying to the credit of Smt. Jasbir Kaur inasmuch as petitioner was nominated
by Smt. Jasbir Kaur as the nominee in her GPF account. The respondent
however did not pay the amount in spite of a legal notice dated 6.9.2001 sent
on behalf of the petitioner, and hence the present petition was filed.
3. The respondent, as per its counter affidavit, has stated that the
petitioner was no doubt a nominee in the GPF account, however it is pleaded
that it is the husband of Smt. Jasbir Kaur who will be entitled to GPF and
not the petitioner. Respondent in the counter affidavit also pleads that
besides GPF, other amounts would be payable under the heads of death
gratuity, family pension and benefits under the group insurance scheme, but,
on these aspects there is no nomination in favour of anyone. Respondent
therefore has disputed the claim of the petitioner. The respondent in support
of its stand has relied upon the provisions of the CCS Pension Rules as also
the Family Pension Rules of 1964, and copies of which have been filed
alongwith counter affidavit.
4. So far as grant of GPF is concerned, once the petitioner is the
nominee, petitioner can always be paid the amount of GPF, of course,
subject to petitioner holding the same as trustee if the husband of Smt. Jasbir
Kaur, namely Sh. Balbir Singh can legally claim and is held entitled to the
said amount as per any interim or final order in judicial proceedings.
Respondent is therefore directed to pay the amount lying in the GPF account
of Smt. Jasbir Kaur to the petitioner and petitioner will receive the said
amount only as the nominee of his daughter and subject to petitioner
refunding the same to any person who may be held entitled to that amount
on an order being passed in any judicial proceedings.
5. So far as grant of gratuity is concerned, it is noted that under
Rule 50(6) of the CCS Pension Rules, a father is shown to be one of the
family members to whom gratuity is payable and hence in view of Rule
50(6)(vi) read with Rule 51(1)(b)(ii) petitioner can be paid the gratuity as he
falls within the expression 'family members'. Once the husband of Smt.
Jasbir Kaur, Sh. Balbir Singh has never made a claim upon the respondent
for grant of gratuity and petitioner is a family member in terms of aforesaid
Pension Rules, there is no reason why respondent should not make payment
of the gratuity amount to the petitioner. Of course, petitioner to the extent of
50% of the gratuity amount will receive the same in trust in case in any
judicial proceedings it is held or ordered that Sh. Balbir Singh is entitled to
receive 50% of the gratuity amount, total of which gratuity the petitioner is
receiving pursuant to the present judgment.
6. As per the Hindu Succession Act, a father is a legal heir as per
Section 15(1)(c). No doubt, a husband is a legal heir in terms of Section
15(1)(a) read with Section 16 Rule 1, but, once the husband does not come
forward to claim the service benefits, and petitioner is also one of the legal
heirs in terms of the aforesaid provision of the Hindu Succession Act,
petitioner can be paid the service benefits which are lying to the account of
the deceased Smt. Jasbir Kaur.
7. I may note that petitioner however will not be entitled to any
family pension because family is defined as per sub Rule 14 of Rule 54 and
a father is not included in the term family for being granted family pension.
8. The present judgment is passed in the very peculiar facts of the
present case where Smt. Jasbir Kaur was thrown out of her husband's home
and it is only the petitioner-father who took care of her and whom she was
living with when she expired. This case therefore will not be treated as a
precedent for other cases.
9. In view of the above, petition is allowed and the petitioner be
paid GPF, gratuity and any other service benefits payable except family
pension. Service benefits due to the petitioner be now paid by the
respondent within two months of receipt of copy of the present judgment. In
case the amounts due are not paid in two months as aforesaid, petitioner
thereafter will be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a simple.
10. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
11. Dasti to petitioner under the signatures of the Court Master.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MARCH 20, 2015
Ne
