Full Judgment
1. Applicant is second widow of deceased Anil Kumar, who was working as a Constable with the respondents and committed suicide on 02.12.2005 due to some family problem with the applicant. Accordingly a case bearing FIR No.873/2005 dated 02.12.2005 under Section 306/34 IPC was registered in PS Mangol Puri against the applicant. It may be stated that the first wife of the deceased had already expired in the year 2001 due to illness, leaving behind minor daughter Kum. Khsuboo. The grievance of the applicant in this case is regarding payment of pensionary benefits to the applicant on account of death of her husband. As pensionary benefits were not paid to the applicant, she filed Writ Petition (C) No.3947/2008 before the High Court, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA No.15/2012.
2. Respondents have filed their reply. The facts, as stated above, have not been disputed. Respondents in the reply-affidavit have categorically stated that as per the scrutiny of the service book of late Constable Shri Anil Kumar it has been found that he had nominated Smt. Premwati (mother), Smt. Sheela Devi (wife) and Km. Khushbu (daughter of his first wife Smt. Poonam) as nominees for his pensionary and other benefits. But on 25.08.2005 he changed his nominees and nominated Smt. Premwati (mother of the deceased) for all the benefits. Accordingly, following pensionary/departmental benefits have been extended to Smt. Premwati (mother):-
1. Cremation Charges Rs.5,000/-
2. UTGEIS (Insurance) Rs.32,448/-
3. Delhi Police Welfare Rs.2,00,000/- Society.
4. Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rs.72,863/-
3. Regarding payment of family pension respondents have stated that in terms of the provisions contained in Family Pension Rules, 1964 applicant and Smt. Khushbu (daughter from his first wife Smt. Poonam) are entitled for 50-50 percent family pension in equal share. But according to Rule 11 (C) pension to applicant could not be sanctioned as she is facing criminal case. Further, it is stated that guardianship certificate is required to sanction half family pension to Kum. Shushbu, as she is minor. Thus, according to the respondents applicant is not entitled to the terminal benefits except 50% family pension, which could not be sanctioned to her because of her involvement in the criminal case.
4. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and gone through the material placed on record. It is not disputed that the deceased Constable Anil Kumar had two wives, namely applicant and Smt. Poonam and his first wife Smt. Poonam had expired in 2001, leaving behind daughter Kum. Khushbu, who was minor at the time of her death. The family pension has to be paid as per the provisions contained in Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Sub Rule (7) (a) (i) and (ii) stipulates that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child. There is a proviso to the said sub rule that if the widow is not survived by any child, here share of the family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares, or if there is only one such other widow, in full, to her. Since in this case there is a minor daughter of the first widow of the deceased, as such in terms of the aforesaid rule family pension is to be payable in equal share to the applicant as well as to Kum. Khushbu, daughter of the first wife of the deceased. Now the further question, which requires our consideration, is whether 50% family pension to which applicant is entitled to can be sanctioned in favour of applicant? The answer to this lies in sub rule (11-C) to Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1954, which stipulates that if a person, who in the event of death of Government servant while in service, is eligible to receive family pension under this rule, is charged with the offence of murdering the Government servant or for abetting in the commission of such an offence, the claim of such a person, including other eligible member or members of the family to receive the family pension, shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. This sub rule further stipulates that after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings if the person is acquitted of the charge of murder or abetting in the murder of the Government servant, the family pension shall be payable to such a person from the date of death of the Government servant. At this stage, we may also notice sub rule (6) of Rule 54, which provides that family pension is payable in the case of unmarried daughter until she attains the age of 25 years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier. Sub rule (7) (b) of Rule 54 stipulates that where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner.5. Thus, from the combined reading of sub rule 6 (iii), 7 (a) and (b) and (11-C) of Rule 54, it is evident that the family pension is payable to the applicant and Kum. Khushbu, daughter from first wife of the deceased in equal share, i.e., 50-50 percent. In the case of Kum. Khushbu family pension is payable upto the period until she attains the age of 25 years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier and further the applicant is not entitled to receive pension till she is acquitted of the criminal charge and if acquitted the family pension shall be payable from the date of death of the Government servant.6. Learned counsel of applicant submits that the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court of the criminal charge, as such she is now entitled to family pension and direction may be given to the respondents to release family pension in her favour. However, the applicant could not produce the copy of the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. Thus, we are of the view that direction can be given to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with the mandate of the aforesaid rule and in case the applicant produces a copy of the judgment of the Trial Court, whereby applicant is stated to have been acquitted of the aforesaid offence, in that eventuality family pension falling in the share of the applicant shall be paid to the applicant, keeping in view the provisions of sub rule (6) (iii) and (7).7. Now, let us consider the second contention raised by the applicant regarding release of pensionary benefits such as gratuity and other benefits. Respondents in their reply-affidavit have categorically stated that in terms of the nomination given by the deceased on 25.08.2008 only the mother of the deceased was nominated to receive all benefits and the amount mentioned above had already been released in her favour. Thus, nothing is payable to the applicant.
8. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel of applicant in that regard. Rule-51 prescribes the person to whom gratuity is payable. Rule 51 (1) (a) provides that gratuity payable under Rule 50 shall be paid to the person or persons to whom the right to receive is conferred by means of nomination under Rule 53. Thus, according to us, the mother of the deceased was entitled to receive the gratuity amount in terms of the aforesaid statutory provisions. In any case, pursuant to the nomination made by the deceased, the mother of the deceased was entitled to receive benefit. Whether such nomination in favour of the mother of the deceased conferred any beneficial interest in the said amount, has to be determined in other proceedings and for that purpose the applicant can resort to the proceedings under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 and thus claim her share of insurance, gratuity and other amount etc.9. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to settle the claim of the applicant for family pension in terms of the observations made above and in case the applicant presents a copy of the judgment of the Trial Court, whereby she is stated to have been acquitted, to the competent authority, the competent authority shall process the case and finalize the same in accordance with the Rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. OA shall stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.