Dismissed

Ram Oraon v. Health

Jharkhand HC6 Apr 2022WPC/7492/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner's claim for death benefits based on nomination and a will was rejected. The Court held that nominees do not own the property and family pension cannot be bequeathed, directing the party to approach the Civil Court for a succession certificate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach the Civil Court for obtaining a succession certificate.

Ram Oraon Vs Health — Succession and Inheritance | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7492 of 2016

¶3

Ram Oraon

¶4

…. …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Secretary, Health Department, Ranchi.

¶8

Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Ranchi.

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum.

¶10

The District Malaria Officer, West Sinhbhum.

¶11

Director, Directorate of Provident Fund, Ranchi.

¶12

District Provident Fund Officer, West Singhbhum.

¶13

Churamani Oraon.

¶14

…. …. Respondents

¶15

¶16

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK

¶17

¶18

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to SC-VI For the Respondent No.8 : Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Advocate

¶19

¶20

13/ 06.04.2022 Heard the parties.

¶21

The petitioner is claiming death-cum-post retirement benefits on account of death of his aunt Late Jaleshwari Oraon, who died issueless while working as Anusevi on 25.1.2016 and nominated the petitioner in provident fund account and also has executed a deed of Will in favour of the petitioner and as such, only the petitioner is entitled to receive all such benefits being nephew of late employee.

¶22

Pursuant to direction passed by this Court, respondent State has come out with the supplementary counter affidavit. In para-5 thereof, the respondent State has clearly mentioned that “ Jaleshwari Oraon was having family with daughters, namely, Bhundu Oraon and Churamani Oraon and Dhani Oraon. Therefore, statement given that she was issueless is absolutely false and incorrect ”.

¶23

Further in para-10, it has been mentioned that the claim of petitioner to pay him the death-cum-post retiral benefits of Late Jaleshwari Oraon on the basis of being a nominee and having a Will in his favour is completely misconstrued and is in teeth of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3839 of 2014 (Viswas Kumar Barnwal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and also in L.P.A. No. 91 of 2009 (Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Prasad).

¶24

This Court in W.P.(S) No. 3839 of 2014 (supra) while dealing with the issue of entitlement of property on the basis of nomination by the owner, has held as under:-

¶25

“There cannot be any manner of doubts that the nomination of a persons does not entitled the person to become the owner of the property. A nominee holds only the property for executing and disbursing the property amongst the legal heirs and entitlement of

¶26

¶27

the property has to be decided according to law of SUCCESSION.”

¶28

So far as the claim of petitioner that there is a Will in his favour, this Court in

¶29

the case of Viswas Kumar Barnwal ( supra ), further held in para-23 as under:-

¶30

“….. the petitioner cannot claim ownership over the retiral dues of the deceased employee. Coming to the question of entitlement of the petitioner in so far as pension/ family pension is concerned, I find that an employee during his life-time cannot nominate a person for family pension as the ex-employee would have no claim over the family pension and therefore, he cannot make a testamentary disposition bequeathing family pension to a person.”

¶31

In the case of Smt. Violet Issaac and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. , reported in (1991) 1 SCC 725 , where a widow made an application for grant of family pension though, due to strained relationship her husband had nominated his brother to receive the retiral benefits and also executed a Will in favour of his brother bequeathing all his properties to him, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-

¶32

“.. the family pension scheme is to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee and since the rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his lifetime for the payment of family pension, the deceased employee had no title to the same and therefore, he should not have disposed of the same by nominating his brother by testamentary disposition.”

¶33

In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, this Court is in full in agreement with the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court.

¶34

As a result, this writ petition having no merit, fails. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for obtaining succession certificate. The disputed facts cannot be looked into by this Court while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶36

R.Kr.

Ram Oraon v. Health

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Oraon v. Health

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Kumar Ray Vs Human Resources Department

Sukhlal Prasad Singh Vs Coal India Limited Through Its C M D And Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Though Its Chairman

Birendra Kumar Srivastava Vs Bharat Cocking Coal Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Bagishwar Nath Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Satyendra Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand