Succession Certificate Not Required For Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits In Case Of Existing Nomination: Allahabad High Court
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is not necessary for an applicant to provide a succession certificate if a nomination exists to their name, while making an application for death-cum-retiral benefits of a deceased government employee.
“…once there is a nomination left by the deceased in his service records in favour of a person, who is his wife, there is no reasons for the respondents or any employer to withhold payment of the post retiral benefits in favour of the nominee in the service records. It is for the other person, not so nominated to establish his/her claim through suit,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case Background
Petitioner's husband was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at an institution under the State of U.P. He later passed away while serving as the Officiating Principal of the Government Inter College Bulandshehar, on 14.07.2020, leaving behind his wife and their four children.
Petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment of one of her sons under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. No objections were shown by the rest of the family by means of an affidavit dated 18.05.2021 and the District Magistrate issued a certificate identifying the family members of the deceased.
Subsequently, the DIOS sent a letter to the petitioner, stating that the certificate issued by the D.M. entitled her to benefits of up to only Rs. 5000/-. It was communicated that in order to get retiral benefits exceeding that amount, she was required to obtain a succession certificate from the Civil Court.
However, one 'Anjum Parveen' (Respondent No.5) claiming herself to be the second wife of the petitioner's late husband, wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, stating that the petitioner had been divorced in 2015 and she was the lawful wife of the deceased. She contended that the authorities halt the release of the benefits to the petitioner.
In response, petitioner filed a petition for the grant of a succession certificate which was contested by Respondent No. 5. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present writ petition, contending that without grant of the death-cum-retiral benefits and the compassionate employment of her son, the family was facing dire financial conditions. It was contended that the petitioner was being deprived of her rights to the release of benefits on her husband's. it was argued that citing a succession certificate was not mandatory as per the rules.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that there were no objections to the petitioner's son being granted a compassionate appointment. That being the case, it directed the DIOS to consider the son's claim to appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Regarding the petitioner's claim to the death-cum-retiral benefits, the Court observed that neither the Court nor the respondent authorities could determine who the lawful successor of the petitioner's husband was. It was observed that the settled position of law in such a case was to award the benefits to the person whose name was nominated in the service records.
“The insistence by the DIOS and the other Education Authorities upon the first petitioner or the fifth respondent securing a succession certificate is of no consequence. A succession certificate even if granted in favour of the first petitioner, or for that matter, the fifth respondent does not create any beneficial interest in the funds or moneys paid to either of them by the respondent Authorities”, held the Court.
Relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta and C.K. Prahalada and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., the Court held that a succession certificate only gave a third-party valid discharge in the funds or movable properties owned by a deceased. It was stated that the same did not declare title for the person in who's the name the certificate was issued.
Further, the Court held that a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act would be at par with a nomination in the service records. It was observed that Respondent No. 5 had shown no evidence to substantiate her claims of being the second wife of the deceased. In such a case, where the petitioner was mentioned as a nominee in the service book of the deceased employee, the Court held that the respondents could no longer deprive her of her benefits.
“The fact that the nomination is there is admitted in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. Also, the information posted on the Manav Sampada Sansadhan Prabandhan Pranali Portal carries a nomination in favour of the first petitioner relating to the General Provident Fund, Gratuity and Pension in the event of Rashid's death and shows her relationship to Rashid as his wife. None of these postings on the official portal disclose the fifth respondent's name, even by remote mention”, held the Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted all subsequent benefits under the Rules.
Case Title: Rafat Naaz and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 6031 of 2024]
Counsel for Petitioner: Ishir Sripat, Siddharth Agrawal
Counsel for Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Shishir Kumar Tiwari