By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents to immediately and forthwith release the terminal dues, like gratuity, General Provident Fund, Family Pension, etc., payable to the petitioner on account of the sad demise of the wife of the petitioner late Smt. Chandrakanta Ambalal Pandya on 29.06.2007, who was working as Head Constable with the respondents at Vadgam.
2. The brief facts, as narrated in the present petition are as under:-
2.1 Wife of the petitioner-Chandrakanta Ambalal Pandya was working with the respondent authorities as Head Constable and died on 29.06.2007 due to the accident. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities for releasing her terminal dues like gratuity, GPF, Family Pension etc., but till date, nothing was done by the respondent authorities. In the meantime, one Shri Jitendra Chimanal Mehta, who was born to Shri Chimanlal Mohanlal Mehta, (previous husband of the wife of the petitioner), and late Chandrakanta Ambalal Pandya who had died on 25.11.1969, filed and application for succession claiming that he is successor of late Smt. Chandrakanta A. Pandya before the Court of learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Danta. The said application was granted by the Court of learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Danta by judgment and order dated 17.04.2008. The review application filed by the present petitioner in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D), Danata is pending.
3. Mr.
Himanshu M. Padhya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 8735 of 2011 before this Court, wherein this Court has given direction to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.04.2011. The respondent authorities have given reply to the petitioner that amount of Insurance has been given to the son of deceased Jitendrakumar Chimanlal. Mr. Padhya further contended that as per the nomination form petitioner is husband of the Government Employee and though his nomination was not recorded earlier, it is required to be nominated in the Government record. Thereafter, again the petitioner made detailed representation on 17.09.2011, but the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authorities.
4. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their reply and contended in para 7 of the reply, which reads as under:-
"7. Authorities have acted as per the law. Petitioner has till not proved his legal right to get the benefits of the terminal dues of her mother and therefore, benefits of family pension and consequent are not granted to him. The deceased Smt. Chandrikaben Ambalal Pandya has died in vehicle accident on 29.06.2007, she was married to one Shri Shimalal Mohanlal Mehta before she married to present petitioner, but that fact was never informed to this office and there was no any written intimation or application to bring the name of present petitioner on the record by this office, even the name of the petitioner is not in the Nomination Form-VII. Therefore, it cannot be decided by this office that petitioner is legal husband of the deceased Smt. Chandrikaben Mehta. One Shri Jiterndrakumar Mehta & Kirankumar Mehta claiming them as sons of earlier husband of deceased Shri Chandrikaben, has filed Civil Misc. Application before the Hon'ble Civil No. 8 of 2007 Judge Danta and obtained succession certificate from the same Court. Now petitioner has filed Review Application No. 21 of 2010 to cancel the succession certificate obtained by one Shri Jiterndrakumar & Kirankumar Mehta. Therefore, at this stage dispute regarding the legal heirs, or legal successor is pending before the concerned court, then for benefit can be granted to any of the persons. As per the request made by the petitioner no benefits are given to anybody by this office, It is pertinent ton note that at relevant time on 17.11.2009 one application of Jitendrakumar Mehta asking insurance amount of deceased is received by this office along with Application Civil Suit No. 8 of 2007, and order dated 17.04.2008, succession certificate and on basis of that the amount of Rs.4 lacs towards insurance of accident is paid to one Shri Jitendrakumar became who he has produce succession certificate granted by Civil Judge, Danta. But, as Review Application is filed by present petitioner after 8 months of the payment of insurance amount, therefore, at relevant time authorities were not aware of the fact that there is dispute of legal heirs of the deceased and thereafter, no payment is made to anyone and serious note is taken by the authority not to make any payment to anyone."
5. Having heard the advocates for both the sides and having gone through the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that this is a dispute between the two sets of legal heirs of the deceased employee. The petitioner is directed to file Civil Suit for appropriate succession certificate. The judgment, which has been relied upon by the learned advocate for petitioner, in the case of G.L.Bhatia, V/s. Union of India, reported in, 1999 (5) SCC 237, is not applicable to the present case.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petition is devoid of any merits and the therefore, the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J] Siddharth// Top