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.
AP High Court
Main Number WP 3992/2018 SR Number WPSR 6620/2018
Petitioner Kambala Venkata Pathi Respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Petitioner Advocate D LINGA RAO Respondent Advocate BATHULA RAJ KIRAN SC FOR LIC
Case Category SERVICE District VISAKHAPATNAM
Filing Date 06/02/2018 Registration Date 07/02/2018
Listing Date 21/03/2018 Case Status DISPOSED Click here to see the Order
Disposal Date 21-03-2018 Diposal Type DISMISSED
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.P.NO.3992 OF 2018
O R D E R
As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition, the case of the petitioners is that one late K.L.Ramana (S.R.No.645316),
while in service with the respondent – Corporation as sub-staff died on
17.03.2010. Petitioner No.1 is the father of the deceased and petitioners 2 and 3
are the daughter and son of the deceased. Aggrieved by the inaction of the
respondent – Life Insurance Corporation, in paying the terminal benefits of the
deceased and family pension, the present writ petition is filed.
It is stated in the writ affidavit that after the death of the deceased on
17.03.2010, his wife also expired, and the 1st petitioner is taking care of
petitioners 2 and 3 by providing necessary amenities. 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. The grievance of the petitioner No.1 is that though his son died in
the year 2010, till date, his terminal benefits have not been paid. Hence the writ
petition.
On behalf of respondents, Assistant Secretary (Legal) of LIC of India,
Zonal Office, Hyderabad, filed counter affidavit and in paragraph No.3, particulars
of attachment orders of civil court against the salary of the deceased, were
mentioned. It is stated that in addition to the amount mentioned in the
attachment orders of civil court, deceased is due an amount of Rs.20,750/- to the
2
respondent – Corporation towards repayment of flood advance taken by him.
Total amount payable towards settlement of terminal benefits of the employee is
Rs.8,12,734/- (Gratuity – Rs.3,19,264-00, Free Insurance – Rs.6,000-00, GSLI –
Rs.2,00,000-00, Group term insurance – Rs.1,75,000-00, Net PF Rs.1,12,470-
00) . Since the amount of Rs.9,08,070/- under various attachments, exceeds the
amount payable towards settlement of terminal benefits, respondents could not
settle the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. As per Instruction No.21
of LIC of India Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993, a
request for appointment on compassionate grounds is to be received from the
spouse or son or unmarried daughter of the employee, who dies while in service,
within a period of one year from the date of death of the employee and that they
have not received any such request within one year from the date of death of the
employee. The maternal grant parents of petitioners 2 and 3, got issued legal
notice dated 31.08.2010 stating that the petitioner No.1, who is the paternal
grandfather of the children, is not taking care of the children and that even during
the life time of late K.L.Ramana, petitioner No.1 has not taken care of his health
and also his daughter-in-law, they even disowned the children after the death of
their son and daughter-in-law and they never enquired about the welfare of their
grandchildren. Therefore, they sought not to entertain any claim made by the
parents of late K.L.Ramana. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 submitted
proper person certificate dated 20.07.2011 from Tahsildar, Anakapalli, containing
names of four family members, in which father (class II legal heirs) of the
deceased employee, is mentioned as proper person to receive the terminal
benefits, even though the Class – I legal heirs are alive. The respondent –
Corporation has promptly given reply to the letter of the petitioner No.1 vide
reference No.DO/OS/AO/(PA) dated 26.12.2011 informing to submit legal heir
certificate from the competent court for settlement of terminal benefits of the
deceased employee and there is no response from petitioner No.1. The family
member certificate issued by Tahsildar, Palcole dated 23.09.2017 containing
names of two family members and also the letter issued by Tahsildar, Palacole
3
vide ref. No.L Dis.866/2017/B dated 02.11.2017, were filed before this court and
not submitted before the respondent – Corporation. With these averments, the
writ petition was sought to be dismissed.
Learned counsel Sri D.Linga Rao, appearing for the petitioners reiterating
the averments made in the writ affidavit, further submitted that there is no dispute
that petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased employee who died
while in service and they are Class-I legal heirs. The wife of the deceased
employee also passed away. Petitioner No.1, who is the paternal grandfather of
petitioners 2 and 3, is taking care of them by providing necessary amenities. He
stated that the 1st respondent produced family member certificate issued by the
revenue authorities, but the respondents are insisting for a legal heir certificate
from a civil court. He stated that as there is no dispute with regard to legal heirs
of the deceased, insisting for a legal heir certificate from a civil court, is not
justified. He contended that under Section 60 of C.P.C. certain amounts like
gratuity and other amounts, are exempted from attachment. Therefore, though
there are attachment orders of civil courts, amounts which are exempted from
attachment under Section 60 of CPC, can be released to the petitioners. With
these submissions, he sought for a direction to the respondents to release the
amounts to the petitioners.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel Sri Battula Raj Kiran,
appearing for the respondent – Corporation reiterating the averments made in the
counter affidavit, submitted that the total amount under the attachment orders of
civil court served on the Corporation, is more than the amount that is due to the
deceased. Apart from that, 1st petitioner produced ‘proper person certificate’
issued by Tahsildar Ankapalli Mandal, where names of four persons were shown
i.e., the parents of the deceased employee and his daughter and son. He stated
that in the family member certificate produced by the 1st petitioner issued by
Tahsildar, Palacole, the names of petitioners 2 and 3 were alone shown.
Therefore, there is inconsistency in both the certificates. He stated that
4
disputing that the 1st petitioner is taking care of the children of the deceased
employee, the maternal grand parents of the children, sent legal notice to the
Corporation, not to disburse the amount to the 1st petitioner. He submits that the
respondent – Corporation issued letter dated 26.12.2011 to the petitioners to
submit legal heir certificate, but there is no response from the petitioners. In
view of these facts and circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel sought to
dismiss the writ petition.
From the above averments, there is no dispute that deceased
K.L.Ramana, who was working as Sub Staff in the respondent – Corporation died
on 17-03-2010 while in service and the petitioners 2 and 3, are his children and
they are minors. Though the 1st petitioner produced proper person certificate
dated 20.07.2011 issued by Tahsildar Anakapalli Mandal and also the family
member certificate dated 23.09.2017 issued by Tahsildar, Palacole, 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.
In view of above facts and circumstances, petitioners are given liberty to
submit original family member certificate dated 23.09.2017 issued by the
Tahsildar Palacole to the respondent – Corporation along with a representation.
5
On receipt of such representation, the competent authority of the respondentCorporation shall consider the representation of petitioners and pass orders
giving details for payment of terminal benefits of deceased employee to
petitioners 2 and 3, which are not attached by civil court and which are exempted
under Section 60 of C.P.C. The said authority, shall also take action for payment
of family pension to petitioners 2 and 3 in accordance with law.
The above exercise shall be completed within three weeks from the date
of submission of application by petitioners 2 and 3.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
----------------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
DATE:21.03.2018
avs
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.
AP High Court
Main Number WP 3992/2018 SR Number WPSR 6620/2018
Petitioner Kambala Venkata Pathi Respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Petitioner Advocate D LINGA RAO Respondent Advocate BATHULA RAJ KIRAN SC FOR LIC
Case Category SERVICE District VISAKHAPATNAM
Filing Date 06/02/2018 Registration Date 07/02/2018
Listing Date 21/03/2018 Case Status DISPOSED Click here to see the Order
Disposal Date 21-03-2018 Diposal Type DISMISSED
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.P.NO.3992 OF 2018
O R D E R
As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition, the case of the petitioners is that one late K.L.Ramana (S.R.No.645316),
while in service with the respondent – Corporation as sub-staff died on
17.03.2010. Petitioner No.1 is the father of the deceased and petitioners 2 and 3
are the daughter and son of the deceased. Aggrieved by the inaction of the
respondent – Life Insurance Corporation, in paying the terminal benefits of the
deceased and family pension, the present writ petition is filed.
It is stated in the writ affidavit that after the death of the deceased on
17.03.2010, his wife also expired, and the 1st petitioner is taking care of
petitioners 2 and 3 by providing necessary amenities. 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. The grievance of the petitioner No.1 is that though his son died in
the year 2010, till date, his terminal benefits have not been paid. Hence the writ
petition.
On behalf of respondents, Assistant Secretary (Legal) of LIC of India,
Zonal Office, Hyderabad, filed counter affidavit and in paragraph No.3, particulars
of attachment orders of civil court against the salary of the deceased, were
mentioned. It is stated that in addition to the amount mentioned in the
attachment orders of civil court, deceased is due an amount of Rs.20,750/- to the
2
respondent – Corporation towards repayment of flood advance taken by him.
Total amount payable towards settlement of terminal benefits of the employee is
Rs.8,12,734/- (Gratuity – Rs.3,19,264-00, Free Insurance – Rs.6,000-00, GSLI –
Rs.2,00,000-00, Group term insurance – Rs.1,75,000-00, Net PF Rs.1,12,470-
00) . Since the amount of Rs.9,08,070/- under various attachments, exceeds the
amount payable towards settlement of terminal benefits, respondents could not
settle the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. As per Instruction No.21
of LIC of India Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993, a
request for appointment on compassionate grounds is to be received from the
spouse or son or unmarried daughter of the employee, who dies while in service,
within a period of one year from the date of death of the employee and that they
have not received any such request within one year from the date of death of the
employee. The maternal grant parents of petitioners 2 and 3, got issued legal
notice dated 31.08.2010 stating that the petitioner No.1, who is the paternal
grandfather of the children, is not taking care of the children and that even during
the life time of late K.L.Ramana, petitioner No.1 has not taken care of his health
and also his daughter-in-law, they even disowned the children after the death of
their son and daughter-in-law and they never enquired about the welfare of their
grandchildren. Therefore, they sought not to entertain any claim made by the
parents of late K.L.Ramana. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 submitted
proper person certificate dated 20.07.2011 from Tahsildar, Anakapalli, containing
names of four family members, in which father (class II legal heirs) of the
deceased employee, is mentioned as proper person to receive the terminal
benefits, even though the Class – I legal heirs are alive. The respondent –
Corporation has promptly given reply to the letter of the petitioner No.1 vide
reference No.DO/OS/AO/(PA) dated 26.12.2011 informing to submit legal heir
certificate from the competent court for settlement of terminal benefits of the
deceased employee and there is no response from petitioner No.1. The family
member certificate issued by Tahsildar, Palcole dated 23.09.2017 containing
names of two family members and also the letter issued by Tahsildar, Palacole
3
vide ref. No.L Dis.866/2017/B dated 02.11.2017, were filed before this court and
not submitted before the respondent – Corporation. With these averments, the
writ petition was sought to be dismissed.
Learned counsel Sri D.Linga Rao, appearing for the petitioners reiterating
the averments made in the writ affidavit, further submitted that there is no dispute
that petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased employee who died
while in service and they are Class-I legal heirs. The wife of the deceased
employee also passed away. Petitioner No.1, who is the paternal grandfather of
petitioners 2 and 3, is taking care of them by providing necessary amenities. He
stated that the 1st respondent produced family member certificate issued by the
revenue authorities, but the respondents are insisting for a legal heir certificate
from a civil court. He stated that as there is no dispute with regard to legal heirs
of the deceased, insisting for a legal heir certificate from a civil court, is not
justified. He contended that under Section 60 of C.P.C. certain amounts like
gratuity and other amounts, are exempted from attachment. Therefore, though
there are attachment orders of civil courts, amounts which are exempted from
attachment under Section 60 of CPC, can be released to the petitioners. With
these submissions, he sought for a direction to the respondents to release the
amounts to the petitioners.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel Sri Battula Raj Kiran,
appearing for the respondent – Corporation reiterating the averments made in the
counter affidavit, submitted that the total amount under the attachment orders of
civil court served on the Corporation, is more than the amount that is due to the
deceased. Apart from that, 1st petitioner produced ‘proper person certificate’
issued by Tahsildar Ankapalli Mandal, where names of four persons were shown
i.e., the parents of the deceased employee and his daughter and son. He stated
that in the family member certificate produced by the 1st petitioner issued by
Tahsildar, Palacole, the names of petitioners 2 and 3 were alone shown.
Therefore, there is inconsistency in both the certificates. He stated that
4
disputing that the 1st petitioner is taking care of the children of the deceased
employee, the maternal grand parents of the children, sent legal notice to the
Corporation, not to disburse the amount to the 1st petitioner. He submits that the
respondent – Corporation issued letter dated 26.12.2011 to the petitioners to
submit legal heir certificate, but there is no response from the petitioners. In
view of these facts and circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel sought to
dismiss the writ petition.
From the above averments, there is no dispute that deceased
K.L.Ramana, who was working as Sub Staff in the respondent – Corporation died
on 17-03-2010 while in service and the petitioners 2 and 3, are his children and
they are minors. Though the 1st petitioner produced proper person certificate
dated 20.07.2011 issued by Tahsildar Anakapalli Mandal and also the family
member certificate dated 23.09.2017 issued by Tahsildar, Palacole, 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.
In view of above facts and circumstances, petitioners are given liberty to
submit original family member certificate dated 23.09.2017 issued by the
Tahsildar Palacole to the respondent – Corporation along with a representation.
5
On receipt of such representation, the competent authority of the respondentCorporation shall consider the representation of petitioners and pass orders
giving details for payment of terminal benefits of deceased employee to
petitioners 2 and 3, which are not attached by civil court and which are exempted
under Section 60 of C.P.C. The said authority, shall also take action for payment
of family pension to petitioners 2 and 3 in accordance with law.
The above exercise shall be completed within three weeks from the date
of submission of application by petitioners 2 and 3.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
----------------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
DATE:21.03.2018
avs
Comments
Post a Comment