Mohd. Ikhlaque Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

REKHA SINGH

2026:CGHC:2121

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2238 of 2016

¶7

1 - Mohd. Ikhlaque Khan S/o Late Mohd. Alam Khan, Aged About 45 Years R/o Masajnganj Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Mohd. Iqhal Khan, S/o Late Mohd. Alam, Khan, Aged About 63 Years R/o Masanjanj, Bilaspur P.S. Civil Lines, Tehsil Bilaspur Civil And Revenue Distirct Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o At Yash Vihar Colony, Qtr No Yc 10, Moti Nagar Tikrapara, P.S. Tikrapara Tehsil Raipur Revenue And Civil Distirct Raipur Chhattisgah, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Collector, Bilaspur Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Tehsildar, Bilaspur Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Ku. Kajol Khan @ Smt. Ayesha Khan @ Kajol, W/o Ganesh Raj, D/o Mohd. Salim Khan, R/o Masanganj, Post And Tehsil Bilaspur Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

6 - Station House Officer, Civil Lines Bilaspur, Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

---- Respondents

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For respondent No.5 : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

14.01.2026

¶22

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief(s) :

¶23

-2-

¶24

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the succession certificate dated 26.06.2014 (Annexure P/1) and the entire proceeding (Annexure P/2) passed in Revenue Case No. 2359/177/B121/2013-14, by the respondents no. 2 to 4 and to issue a suitable writ in the nature of prohibition for preventing an order or decision being made which if made would be subject to certiorari.

¶25

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by commanding the respondent no. 6 for registering the F.I.R. against the respondent no. 5 for the act of withdrawing the service benefit of deceased Kumari Shamshad Begum from the service account disbursed in the name of provident fund, gratuity and pension etc.

¶26

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal.

¶27

10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶28

The facts in brief are that Kumari Shamshad Begum was Upper Division Teacher at Government Middle School Rehangi, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.). She died on 06.02.2013. The petitioners are her biological brothers, whereas, respondent No.5 has represented herself daughter of the deceased Kumari Shamshad Begum. After death of Kumari Shamshad Begum, there was a dispute with regard to her terminal benefits. An application for grant of succession certificate was filed by respondent No.5 according to the provisions of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act of 1925’) before the competent Court and at the same time, an application was moved

¶29

3

¶30

before the Collector, Bilaspur for issuance of succession certificate for entitlement of service benefits. The Additional Collector vide order dated 17-26.06.2014 granted a certificate in favour of respondent No.5 and declared her sole legal heir of Kumari Shamshad Begum. Respondent No.5 collected the service benefits of late Kumari Shamshad Begum pursuant to succession certificate issued by the Deputy Collector dated 17-26.06.2014 and against said order, this petition has been preferred.

¶31

Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Kumari Shamshad Begum died bachelor. He would further submit that the parents of Kumari Shamshad Begum died prior to her death. The petitioners herein are biological brothers of Kumari Shamshad Begum. He would contend that according to service record, Kumari Shamshad Begum was a spinster but respondent No.5 represented herself as biological daughter and claimed terminal benefits and therefore, an application was moved under Section 372 of the Act of 1925. He would contend that an application was moved for grant of succession certificate before the Collector Bilaspur. He would further contend that the petitioners were not arrayed as non-applicants in those applications and without affording an opportunity of hearing, the order dated 17-26.06.2014 (Annexure P/1) was passed. He would submit that according to the Circular issued by the State Government dated 17.12.2003, the Revenue authorities including

¶32

-4-

¶33

Deputy Collector/Collector may issue a succession certificate according to the provisions of Rule 47(14) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules of 1976’). He would pray to quash the order dated 17-26.06.2014 vide Annexure P/1.

¶34

On the other hand, Mr. Waquar Naiyer, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Khan. He would submit that the order was passed by the Deputy Collector way back in the year 2014 and the amount was disbursed in favour of respondent No.5. He would further submit that the Deputy Collector issued a proclamation and thereafter, decided the application. He would contend that no objection was raised by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector. He would further contend that respondent No.5 is biological daughter of deceased Kumari Shamshad Begum and after due inquiry, the Deputy Collector passed an order in her favour. He would also contend that the amount disbursed in favour of respondent No.5 has already been utilized and thus, the petition has become infructuous.

¶35

Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Mr. Naiyer.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶37

The Collector/Deputy Collector exercised its power according to

¶38

5

¶39

Circular dated 17.12.2003. In the Circular, the State Government has authorized the Tehsildar and superior revenue authorities for issuance of dependents’ certificates for entitlement of pension according to the provisions of Rule 47(14) of the Rules of 1976. Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 deals with Contributory family pension. Sub-rule 14 of Rule 47 applies for grant of family pension and the family includes son or an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter till such son or daughter attains the age of twenty five years or upto the date of his/her marriage/remarriage, the parents, provided they were wholly dependent on the Government servant; son, unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter and parents. Rule 47(14) of the Rules of 1976 is reproduced herein below :

¶40

“ Rule 47(14) :For the purpose of this rule-

¶41

(a) "continuous service" means all periods from the date of entry into pensionable service which counts for pension/gratuity admissible to the Government servant under these rules.

¶42

(b) "family" in relation to the Government servant means-

¶43

(i) [ x x x ]

¶44

[(ii) son or an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter till such son or daughter attains the age of twenty five years or upto the date of his/her marriage/remarriage as the case may be, whichever is earlier, subject to the income criteria as prescribed by the State Government from time to time including such son or daughter adopted legally before retirement.]

¶45

(iii) the parents, provided they were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive and the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child subject to the dependency criteria as prescribed by the State Government from time to time;

¶46

(iv) son, unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter and parents, as the case may be, shall provide an annual Certificate of income/dependency Criteria as fixed by the

¶47

-6-

¶48

State Government from time to time.]

¶49

x x x]

¶50

A bare reading of above-quoted provision would make it clear that the certificates can be issued for grant of contributory family pension only and for other terminal benefits, the legal representatives are required to approach competent civil Court.

¶51

The fallout of above-discussion is that the Deputy Collector for Collector, Bilaspur vide order dated 17-26.06.2014 exceeded its jurisdiction, therefore, the order dated 17-26.06.2014 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed.

¶52

10.The amount of the terminal benefits has already been received by respondent No.5, therefore, there shall be no recovery until any adverse order is passed against respondent No.5 by the competent Court. The petitioners would be at liberty to take recourse to law.

¶53

11.The pending interim applications are hereby disposed of.

¶54

12.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶57

Rekha

Mohd. Ikhlaque Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ikhlaque Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deleted (Ram Pyare Sahu) Vs Deleted (Bishambhar Prasad)

Smt. Pramila Bai Vs Sonuram Netam

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tileshwar Prasad

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Rain Bai Kunjam

Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tata a. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rama Kadam