Judgment:
S.P. Talukdar, J.
1. The present application is directed against order dated 23rd September, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' in M.A. No. 15 of 2003, (O. A. No. 739 of 2002).
2. Grievances of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows:
Petitioner, an U.D. Assistant in the P&A.R.; Department, Government of West Bengal, got married to Ruhu Mukherjee, since deceased on 18.06.1998. After marriage they have been residing together as husband and wife. The said Runu Mukherjee was suffering from mental imbalance since prior to her marriage and, for this, she was under medical treatment. On 08.04.2002, she, while residing with her parents committed suicide by jumping on the track of Metro Railway at Jatin Das Park Station. Respondent No. 5 intimated the Officer-in-Charge of the Kalighat Police Station that they had no complaint against the petitioner in respect of such death. Petitioner handed over all the stridhan properties belonging to his wife, since deceased, and the same included the gold ornaments as well. The said wife of the petitioner was an employee of South Eastern Railway and by letter dated 27.11.2002 the petitioner approached the Railway authority to settle the dues and benefits arising out of death of his wife, Runu, who was a Railway employee. By letter dated 05.12.2002 the respondent No. 2 intimated the petitioner that the matter is sub-judice in O.A. No. 739 of 2002. On receipt of the same, the petitioner made enquiries and came to learn that the mother of his wife, since deceased, being respondent No. 5 filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act seeking settlement of dues and release of the same on the strength of purported nomination made in her favour prior to her marriage with the petitioner. Railway authorities being respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed an objection categorically stating therein that the present petitioner is the legitimate claimant of the said dues.
3. In view of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 74 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the earlier nomination made before the marriage is invalid. Petitioner by filing an application being M.A. No. 15 of 2002 sought to be added as a party in the said proceeding and in response to the same, the Tribunal by order dated 02.01.2003 allowed the petitioner to be so added. Subsequently by order dated 23rd September, 2003, the Tribunal disposed of the matter with a direction upon the petitioner to produce a Succession Certificate before the respondent authorities.
4. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order dated 23rd September, 2003, the petitioner has filed instant application praying for setting aside of the same and for a direction upon the respondent authorities to settle the legitimate dues of the petitioner.
5. Though much was sought to be stated regarding the suicidal death of the wife of the petitioner, it is perhaps not necessary to mention that there is hardly any scope for this Court within the scope of the present application to entertain such grievances. Every premature death is, no doubt, unfortunate and more so, when it is accidental or suicidal. But every suicidal death cannot carry a presumption of guilt against the near and dear ones of the victim. In the present case it appears that the mother-in-law of the victim by her letter dated 9th April, 2002 addressed to O.C., Kalighat Police Station intimated that there is no grievance against the husband of the said deceased and no complaint was lodged by them.
6. On the other hand, attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that the stridhan properties including the gold ornaments belonging to the wife of the petitioner, since deceased, were handed over to respondent No. 5 or her representatives. In any way, we are hardly concerned about that aspect within the scope and ambit of the present application.
7. It appears from the materials on record that the wife of the petitioner while in service made a nomination for provident fund, gratuity as well as other pensionary benefits when she had no family of her own as she was unmarried at the relevant time. Subsequently, she acquired a family and in that view of the matter earlier nomination in terms of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 74 the Railway, Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 became invalid. Thus, the claim of the present respondent No. 5, on the basis of the earlier nomination does not seem to have much force in it.
8. It follows from the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 that 'a family', in relation to a Railway servant, means and includes the husband in the case of a female Railway servant.
9. Much was sought to be argued referring to the circular being No. P/R/58/1A/Pt.XV dated 20.12.1990. It relates to disbursement of provident fund dues of a deceased subscriber in the light of amendment in the definition of family. The said circular places the husband and the parents as well as some others on the same platform in case of a female subscriber. Mr. Bagchi, ld. Counsel for the petitioner, has rightly submitted that it relates to settlement of provident fund dues only.
10. It is the stand of the Railway authorities that all the benefits arising out of death of the Railway employee will be settled in favour of the person as per direction of this Court. Railway authorities thus do not seem to have any axe to grind and strictly speaking, are not a party to the present dispute.
11. This case is, thus, essentially confined to two individuals who are closely related to the deceased Railway employee. It is a clash between the husband and the mother of such employee. Ld. Tribunal while passing the impugned order directed them to produce a Succession Certificate before the respondent/Railway authorities. Now the question is as to why the parties should at all be compelled to do so. The claim of the petitioner/husband is based on Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. According to Section 15(1)(a) the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves upon the sons and daughters and the husband. Respondent No. 5 cannot be said to have any better claim nor there is any rule framed by the Railway authority in accordance with Article 309 of the Constitution so as to equip her with any better claim.
12. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 5, Mr. Milan Bhattacharjee, has referred to the decision reported in AIR 2004 SC 2271, but the facts and circumstances of the said case are significantly different from those of the present case and the guidelines given therein are entirely in a different context.
13. Having regard to all such facts and circumstances, we find it difficult to agree with the stand taken by the Tribunal. It is not desirable to compel a party to seek redress before another forum when law permits granting of such reliefs in response to a pending application. The order impugned thus suffers from inherent impropriety and, as such, is liable to be set aside.
14. Accordingly, the present application be allowed and the respondent/Railway authorities being respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are hereby directed to settle the claim of dues and death benefits except of course, P.F. dues in respect of late Runu Mukherjee in favour of her husband, i.e., the present petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Such settlement be made in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.
15. There is no order as to costs.
16. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on payment of requisite fees.
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.
17. I agree.