Refusing to grant death benfits to the legal heirs on minor causes by saying some attachments are there on deceased and insisting for civil court order insted of family member certificate = Petitioners 2 and 3 being minors and unmarried, are entitled for family pension from 17.03.2010, from the respondent – Corporation. Claiming terminal benefits of the deceased, 1st petitioner submitted family member certificate issued by the revenue authorities. Instead of accepting the said certificate issued by the revenue authorities and paying terminal benefits of his deceased son, respondents are insisting for legal heir certificate from a competent civil court. The case of the petitioners is that as there are no rival claims, insisting for legal heir certificate, is not justified. AP High Court held that the fact remains that petitioners 2 and 3 herein are the children of the deceased and they are Class-I heirs. They are entitled for terminal benefits of the deceased and since they minors and unmarried, as per Rule 39 of Life Insurance Corporation (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, they are entitled for family pension, till they attain the age of 25 years. Under Section 60 of CPC, certain amounts are exempted from attachment. Therefore, in my considered view, the respondent – Corporation ought to have considered the payment of terminal benefits to petitioners 2 and 3, which are exempted under Section 60 of CPC. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the petitioners produced the family member certificate before this court and they have not submitted the same to the Corporation regarding settlement of terminal benefits.
Refusing to grant death benfits to the legal heirs on minor causes by saying some attachments are there on deceased and insisting for civil court order insted of family member certificate = Petitioners 2 and 3 being minors and unmarried, are entitled for family pension from 17.03.2010, from the respondent – Corporation. Claiming terminal benefits of the deceased, 1st petitioner submitted family member certificate issued by the revenue authorities. Instead of accepting the said certificate issued by the revenue authorities and paying terminal benefits of his deceased son, respondents are insisting for legal heir certificate from a competent civil court. The case of the petitioners is that as there are no rival claims, insisting for legal heir certificate, is not justified. AP High Court held that the fact remains that petitioners 2 and 3 herein are the children of the deceased and they are Class-I heirs. They are entitled for terminal benefits of the deceased and since they minors and unmarried, as per Rule 39 of Life Insurance Corporation (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, they are entitled for family pension, till they attain the age of 25 years. Under Section 60 of CPC, certain amounts are exempted from attachment. Therefore, in my considered view, the respondent – Corporation ought to have considered the payment of terminal benefits to petitioners 2 and 3, which are exempted under Section 60 of CPC. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the petitioners produced the family member certificate before this court and they have not submitted the same to the Corporation regarding settlement of terminal benefits.