IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 8340 of 2023
Date of decision : 28.3.2024.
Kiran Hans & another ...Petitioners.
Versus
Union of India & others ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Manish Sharma,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior
Panel Counsel for respondents
No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral):
By way of the instant petition, the petitioner
has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-
“i) That the impugned order dated 9.10.2023,
annexure P-7, may kindly be quashed and set
aside.
ii) That the petitioners and respondent No.4 may
be held entitled to amounts payable on account
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-
of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, General
Provident Fund and CGEGIS to the extent of
their share as per law of succession.
iii) That respondents may be directed to release
the due and admissible pensionary and
terminal benefits in favour of petitioners in a
time bound manner.
iv) That the petitioners may be held entitled to
interest at market rate on delayed payments.”
2. There is no denial to the fact that petitioners No.
1 and 2 are wife and daughter of late Sh. Vijay Kumar.
There is also no dispute as to the status of respondent
No.4 being mother of late Sh. Vijay Kumar. By virtue of
their respective relationship with late Sh. Vijay Kumar,
they are the legal heirs and entitled to the estate of
deceased Vijay Kumar in accordance with law. The
respective shares allotable to the petitioners and
respondent No.4 out of the estate of late Sh. Vijay Kumar
shall obviously to be as per mandate of law.
3. Respondents No. 1 to 3 being employer of
deceased are under liability to disburse certain service
benefits of deceased Vijay Kumar after his death.
Respondents No. 1 to 3 were probably facing difficulty for
-3-
such disbursal on account of the reason that late Sh. Vijay
Kumar had nominated respondent No.4 for the purpose of
benefits under DCRG, GPF and CGEGIS. Now, respondent
No.4 has fairly come up with stand that notwithstanding
the nomination having been made in her favour by late Sh.
Vijay Kumar, she does not dispute the right of petitioners
in respect of service benefits, except pension. Even
petitioners are not denying the right of respondent No.4 to
share the service benefits of late Sh. Vijay Kumar except
the pension, in accordance with law. Needless to say, the
legal position is otherwise well settled that a nominee
merely on the ground having been nominated as such does
not acquire any exclusive rights over the estate of a
deceased more particularly where it includes the service
benefits. A reference in this regard can be made to 2009
(10) SCC 680, titled as Shipra Sengupta vs. Mridul
Sengupta & others, paragraphs 17 and 18 whereof read as
under:-
17. The controversy involved in the instant case is
no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to
receive the same, but the amount so received is to
-4-
be distributed according to the law of succession.
18. In terms of the factual foundation laid in this
case, the deceased died on 8.11.1990 leaving
behind his mother and widow as his only heirs
and legal representatives entitled to succeed.
Therefore, on the day when the right of
succession opened, the appellant, his widow
became entitled to one half of the amount of the
general provident fund, the other half going to the
mother and on her death, the other surviving son
getting the same.
18. In view of the clear legal position, it is made
abundantly clear that the amount in any head
can be received by the nominee, but the amount
can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in
accordance with law of succession governing
them. In other words, nomination does not confer
any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the
instant case amounts so received are to be
distributed according to the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956.”
4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 also cannot have any
possible objection in light of the settled position of law for
disbursal of the service benefits of deceased Vijay Kumar in
accordance with law.
-5-
5. In light of above, this petition is disposed of by
quashing Annexures P-7 and P-8. Respondents No. 1 to 3
are directed to immediately disburse all the service benefits
of late Sh. Vijay Kumar to the petitioners and respondent
No.4 as per their share and in accordance with law save
and except the benefit of pension, which as per the rules
shall be available to the wife only. It is clarified that the
disbursal of amount shall also include the statutory
interest, if any, available on any of the amount, so required
to be disbursed. The entire exercise shall be done within
six weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya)
28th March, 2024 Judge
(kck)